Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 54

Closing RfC
Hmmm... would anyone object if I (as the author of the proposal) close the RfC to additional comments at least - We can put a simple (and non-committal) "Determination pending" notice on it ... which can be replaced by what ever determination Brad and crew come up with... that will "end" the RfC, but also give the team of uninvolved Admins the time they need to read everything, discuss and tell us how to move forward. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Give us a chance, please. Given the ludicrous amount of comment to read through, this is going to take quite a while. Black Kite (t)   23:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think BB is suggesting putting a wrapper around this now so that you are not reading a constantly changing (and increasing) target. Leaky  Caldron  23:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Give me a minute.  Black Kite (t)   23:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If only more RfCs could get this amount and level of attention, things around here could work a lot better as fewer pages would be controlled by small groups of editors. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK done. Please feel free to add comments, they will be taken into account. Thanks,  Black Kite (t)   23:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. We have "  Please do not modify it.  " and "Please feel free to add comments." No question about it. We're on a Wikipedia policy page. (Do I see flames on the horizon?) --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just about to !vote Support having had my first glance at the drama boards for a while. So can I or can't I?--Peter cohen (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. My comment above was meant to indicate the argument discussion had ended, but individual Support/Oppose comments would still be noted.  Black Kite (t)   06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My ratonale was based on how in frnge discussions such as the Shakespeare Authorshp Question, the fringe people tend to use the fact something s supported by a low to medium qualty source as grounds for including it even when high quality academc sources say otherwise.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Closers, IMO, please feel free to take all of the time need to handle this well and thoroughly. Sincerely, ~! North8000 (talk)
 * Thanks Black Kite... this was essentially what I had in mind. Take all the time you need to figure out how best to close it "officially". Blueboar (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow...that's one of the biggest, if not the biggest'' purple boxes I ever seen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think there is a case to be made that the purple box should be bigger. It has been refactored to includes only SOME of the suplementary threads which were started after the RfC thread (specifically, all of the ones that did not get auto-archived before the close process commenced). For confirmation you can see in the history (say, back in Nov.14) that some of the threads now included in the purple box were formerly separate sections from the RFC, whereas Archive 53 has plenty of comparable threads that appear excluded from consideration. This could be seen as a bias favouring views that kept being vocally repeated the longest over those that were expressed earlier with apparently more definitive arguments. :P Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relax... the purple box is simply a way to tell new editors that the RfC is over. The team of admins who are reviewing the material (and will eventually give us a determination as to the RfC's outcome) are fully aware of all the archived discussions and sub-pages.  That's one reason they are taking so long to give us a decision... they have a lot to read.  Give them time, please. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible next RFC?
Since it seems to have gotten in there by creep rather than a process such as is required for a change much larger than the current proposed compromise, it may be time for a years-overdue RFC to see if there is a consensus for the following change:

Shall "not truth" be added to the first sentence of wp:ver in a way to have it read: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".

At this point I say this for perspective only, I support the current compromise proposal. North8000 (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the phrase was coined during this rewrite of the OR policy in 2004-2005. Parsecboy (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is this a casting call for an upcoming production of this? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) I don't understand what you are proposing, North. Why would we ask if "not truth" should be added to the first sentence?  "Not truth" is already in the first sentence, and has been for years.  Or did you mean we should ask (again) if those words should be removed from the first sentence? Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Right now I'M NOT PROPOSING ANYTHING, just discussing a possibility for perspective. I support the compromise in the current RFC.   But it would be the missing RFC for the addition that crept in without sufficient advertising.   In essence, that those changes putting "not truth" in to make the first sentence read  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" which came in by creep and insufficient process should not stay unless there is sufficient consensus in a sufficiently advertised RFC that they should stay. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: I'll be mostly off-wiki the next three days. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * For whatever you have in mind, please consider waiting for the present RfC to be resolved before discussing it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. For me the compromise/clarification in the RFC would sufficiently resolve the core issue long term and I support it. North8000 (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I recommend that you stop beating this horse. Even with the non-neutral title and non-neutral wording, the RfC still failed to gain consensus.  I recommend you wait 6 months or so before the next RfC. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice try at claiming non-consensus on the current RFC via an implied premise. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No implied premise; an explicitly stated premise: this RfC failed to demonstrate consensus on anything. By the standards of WP:NOTDEM, the supporters would not be a consensus even if they were in perfect agreement, and they were not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This language was added in 2005, and has been thoroughly discussed since; the claim of procedural irregularity depends on a claim that we routinely used RfCs to change policy back then, which is not what I remember. Whether there is consensus to remove verifiability, not truth, without moving it elsewhere or explaining it, is one of the questions the closers have to determine; I don't see it myself, but I am willing to wait for them to read this mess before I decide what to do next. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...which came in by creep and insufficient process should not stay unless there is sufficient consensus in a sufficiently advertised RFC that they should stay.
 * "Consensus" can be (and most often is) inferred by acquiescence and stability, your protestations notwithstanding. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. "Written permission documented in advance" is not required to make a change to any page.  If a change is made and sticks, it is presumed to have consensus.  When (as in this case) the change is made, discussed every few months, and still sticks (so far; perhaps this discussion will be the one that indicates a change), then it is proven to have consensus.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, fair enough. I assume the point North is trying to highlight is that VNT didn't need any sort of formal consensus to get in, so it doesn't need any kind of special consensus to demote it. That's what I assume. An actual RfC on removing it should sensible wait until this one is done with, of course. --FormerIP (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The important difference is that its addition was generally supported and that its removal (or re-wording) has been strongly contested. So the same rules apply to both additions and removals (or any other sort of change), but the rules are different for changes depending on whether the change is accepted or contested.  In this particular case, the addition was accepted, and the removal has been contested.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it requires ordinary consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

North, at this point what you are doing verges on disruptive editing. With respect I suggest you take a month to edit actual articles, an try - just for a month - to put your anti-"not truth" cursade out of your mind and just allow yourself to get some perspective. I am sure there is a lot of quality content you can add to a range of articles.

But it is bad practice and unconstructive to follow an RfC immediately with another RfC and for the exact same reasons it is unconstructive to discuss another RfC or propose discussing another RfC. We all need a break. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's looking like the answer to my first message above is "yes". Maybe not. Time will tell. P.S. The link in the message is to an entertaining film trailer that might be perceived as having parallels here, or might not. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been gone for a few days. As I said, at this point it is only for perspective.   Especially with respect to the double standard that some are promoting, that the process pre-November 2 was insufficient for a wording change which merely clarifies "not truth" but the much more significant and controversial change of adding "not truth" not yet having gone through a such process and getting the required consensus in it.
 * Also, remember that anything like this would be just continuation of the current 11-month discussion that the compromise proposal seeks to resolve. I support the compromise proposal to resolve it. North8000 (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This would appear to be an admission that a proposal to simply remove does not have consensus. It doesn't; it may well not have a majority. Noted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for North, but I would agree that completely removing "V not T" from this policy is unlikely to gain a consensus... I, for one, would not support it. From the beginning I have said that I feel strongly that it needs to be in the policy somewhere (I have simply grown much more flexible on the question of where in policy it is placed... hence the compromise that I proposed in the current RfC).   Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted, the missing / overdue RFC is the one for the ADDITION of "not truth", not the deletion of it, whether this addition that came in by creep actually has consensus in a suitably broad process.  But I support the compromise and from my standpoint that would resolve it even if it's not ideal. North8000 (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What compromise? I still haven't seen a single attempt to address the issue of unwarrented promotion of fringe theories.  Nor have I seen examples of someone knowingly arguing for incorrect, but verifiable information in an article soley on the basis that it's verifiable.  Seems to me that we're still on page one.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Answering your first question the compromise is the proposal embodied in the current RFC. I'm probably with you on the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, but I don't think that the this affects that, nor has that concern been been very evident in the discussions. Examples of the latter have been given many many times during the debate. They usually take the form of someone saying that incorrectness can't be discussed because of "not truth". North8000 (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Quest for Knowledge, Initially the discussion was between those who wanted to remove the phrase "verifiability, not truth" and those who wanted to keep it. The compromise was to keep the phrase but move it out of the lead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

RFC
The following lengthy discussion is under review by the closers, see below Please remove or strike this note when you are done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The RFC has been automatically archived and can now be found at here. Close is still pending at this point. Yoenit (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

We could include in the policy that "truth" is a controversial issue
You can imagine a text saying that how to deal with a claim about "truth" is a controversial issue on Wikipedia, and then one can give some arguments from both sides, explaining what the issues are. Count Iblis (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether it is a controversial issue. I think the number of editors who are interested in "what is truth anyway?" discussions is small. This is an important but, all said and done, wonkish debate about what we should emphasise in one of our core policies. It isn't in any way about the nature of reality. --FormerIP (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Or did Count mean that "not truth" as in the current version on the policy page is controversial? North8000 (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What I mean is what to do if the verdict is that there isn't enough consensus for the proposal. Taking into account the way this proposal was arrived at (not in one or two weeks of deliberations, but months of work by experienced editors to maximize the support for it), you cannot reasonable expect a modified text along the same lines of the current proposal to get significantly more support. Then, while the proposal cannot be adapted, we can't stick with the current text either, because that has far less support. Any text that makes a definite statement presenting this policy as if it has wide consensus won't work, so the only way out would be to write up the policy in such a way that makes it clear that the Wiki community is split about how verifiablily is supposed to work, what the role of "truth" is etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Well, I agree that, in the event of a no consensus call, it would make no sense to tweak the wording of the proposal and try again. A new approach would have to be taken, maybe along the lines you suggest. But perhaps we should sit tight for now. --FormerIP (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary. It is patent that tweaking this text can cut the opposition in half; it may do more, by reassuring those who now express unconditional opposition that we do not actually mean to change policy. That a committee of self-appointed experts have labored like mountains does not mean this proposal is an elephant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * By re-running the RfC with tweaked wording, we might get a slight musical chairs effect. But there's no single change suggested by comments that would satisfy a significant number of opposers and of the various suggested changes some are contradictory. Plus there's the likelihood of losing some supporters. All of which assumes we would get the exact same pool of voters, of course. There's also the problem that, if you are setting out to clarify an RfC in which hundreds of users participated, your second RfC will also need hundreds of participants (because an RfC with 20 voters would be meaningless next to the one we've just had).
 * I think the reality is that the decision on this will have to be taken as categorical. If it is "no consensus", it means that a majority of 2/3 or thereabouts on this sort of question is not enough. I don't think driving it much higher is realistic, so a new approach would be required. --FormerIP (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the present opposition could be essentially eliminated if there was no change. But the purpose of the proposal is to improve the policy by clarification, rather than  just to reduce the ranks of those who presently oppose it. The proposal does have a lot of support compared to the opposition, and the relative amount of support was growing  when the RfC was closed.  Anyhow, I agree with FormerIP that "perhaps we should sit tight for now", and wait for the 3 admins to finish their work.   --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the main problem is that verifiability through reliable sources is our minimum standard for inclusion. The problem is that some editors think that this is a sufficient or sole criteria for inclusion.  I do not think that we need the concept of "truth" but I do think that we need more guidance on the appropriate use of sources, including sufficient context.  "Appropriate" and "context" require the use of judgment which requires more effort than many editors are willing to make.  I think that some of our efforts are better spent improving our RS guidelines, but the ultimate solution is going to rely, as has always been the case, in recruiting a larger and more diverse pool of editors who have good research skills and are willing to take the time required to do the necessary research.  It is easy to blame policy but the big problems always go back to this being a "wiki" pedia that anyone can edit anytime.  I obviously support this, but we should not be surprised when many editors come who have piss-poor research skills, or lack adequate resources to do a good job but insist on adding content anyway.  The only solution to this is even more volunteer editors who do have the skills and time and resources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And I don't see much, if any, objection to adding that verifiability is a minimum standard, for example. Little can be done about editors who misreport sources because they didn't understand them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Wikipedia's open editing is not expected to be anywhere near perfect, but rather tries to generate a lot of material while making articles at least reasonably readable and credible. There is a diversity of editor temperaments and skills, and for the most part, editors help fill in each others deficiencies when needed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:V can't do anything about the quality of editors on WP. But, whatever their quality, what they perceive their brief to be matters. --FormerIP (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Slrubenstein, IMHO the current proposal takes a small step towards what you just described. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC decision?
Was a closing summary ever made for the RfC or is it still being worked on? If it was made, I must have missed it, since I didn't and still don't see it in the parts in the archive or the section above. Silver seren C 17:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Still being worked on. North8000 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Working onward
Blueboar's four points, are, I agree, a place to start. I quote them as they stand, in the hope that we can see what we actually agree on, and find ways to deal with each concern separately. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability is not enough.

 * '' Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that any material that appears in source must be included...simply because it is verifiable. This misinterpretation is in conflict with several other policy and guideline statements (especially the WP:Undue weight section of WP:NPOV), but examples of this misinterpretation happening in practice have been provided.

Blueboar's proposed wording was while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion.


 * I certainly agree that this is a problem. While I think Blueboar's phrasing can be bettered, I have no objection to it in substance. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability does not imply truth

 * '' Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that we may not discuss the possibility that verifiable information is untrue (i.e., that the source may contain an error). Specifically, this reading says that editors need not discuss the exclusion of material on the grounds of being not true, in the same way that editors need not discuss the inclusion of material on the grounds of being true. That is, we must accept what a published source says simply because it is published, even if we have reason to believe that the material is inaccurate or that the source is less than reliable.


 * Again I agree. But the proposal addressed this only by implication. I would propose:
 * Verifiability does not mean that Wikipedia must accept what a published source says simply because it is published, even though we have reason to believe that the material is inaccurate or that the source is less than reliable. See also the section below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Judgment calls

 * ''Counter concern: This was never the intent. We often need to make judgment calls about the reliability of specific sources when it comes to specific information. A source may be reliable for one statement, but unreliable for some other statement. We also have to make judgment calls about the relative reliability of one source when compared to others. As Jimbo Wales puts it, "We are not transcription monkeys." We do want the information we present in Wikipedia to be accurate, as far as possible. Further, as NPOV notes, we cannot omit significant viewpoints just because we disagree with them (or even because most sources disagree with them). Sometimes we should discuss facts and opinions that may be untrue, because doing so gives the reader a complete picture of disagreement among the sources.


 * Again I agree. But the proposed text again dealt with this by implication. I would prefer something like, continuing the section above Arguments that sources are mistaken or unreliable on a specific point must be based on reliable sources. Furthermore, we cannot omit significant viewpoints just because we disagree with them (or even because most sources disagree with them). Sometimes we should discuss facts and opinions that may be untrue, because doing so gives the reader a complete picture of disagreement among the sources.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson

The lead

 * ''Concern: Introducing the concept of "truth" in the lede is distracting and confusing, particularly for new editors. The lede should focus purely on explaining what Wikipedia means.


 * Here we come to the meat of the matter. There is the
 * ''Counterconcern: taking "verifiability not truth" out of the lead deprives the point of its necessary rhetorical effectiveness.


 * We are quite evenly divided on this; several of the support votes in the RFC agree with the counterconcern, but think the explanatory paragraph worth the cost. For my part, let us have the explanatory paragraph without the cost, and come back to this in three months; but if the rhetorical effect of verifiability, not truth can be attained by other means, all the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We need to be clear about two different but equally vexing issues: first, whatever source we use, it must be represented accurately. I think a lot of credibility issues facing WP come from people cherry-picking quotes.  It is &mdash; strictly speaking &mdash; "verifiable" that source x contains quote y.  But Simply providing the quote may not be sufficient to provide an accurate representation of the author's view.  One needs to read not just the quote but the section or article or chapter or even other parts of a book, in order to understand what the author is trying to communicate.


 * The second issue is what is the best source? To my way of thinking, the best source is the one that most clearly expreses what experts believe.  We do not need to make any truth claims about special relativity, for example, or about evolution.  What matters is that the majority or even virtually all physicists or biologists hold to a particular view.  My point is that the fact that a quote comes from a peer-reviewed journal article written by someone with a PhD. may be sufficient grounds to include the view in an article, but these basic criteria (PhD., peer-reviewed) are simply insufficient to tell us whether this is a new theory, or a view that many experts share but many do not, or a view that is universally accepted among experts.  I do not think that we need to claim that a view is true, but I do think that we need to strive to represent the views that are shared by all experts, the views that are shared by most experts, and the views that are held by a significant number of experts.  To be able to draw these distinctions requires more criteria than the minimum criteria of RS. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! but should these be another concern? If so please make a subsection. Perhaps some words about scholarship through Google? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Procedural discussion
Yes. It is off-topic. This is not the place to discuss process or other policies, it is to discuss the contents of the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

IMHO no, it is not off topic. And it was written in the section of the previous material, pointing out that the previous material was written in a way to imply/presume a certain  outcome of the current RFC. The someone moved it out of the section that it was germane to, which I did not revert at the time but now see needs reverting if someone continues to try to hide and mis-characterize it. North8000 (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't off topic. Pretty much everything on the page at the moment is unhelpful, but I only think it adds to the unhelpfulness if editors start collapsing parts they don't like. --FormerIP (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I am utterly fed up seeing the same handful of editors with 4000+ contributions between them on this RfC page pontificating endlessly about the RfC, its possible outcome, what action might then be needed, disputing ad nauseum and tediously what is meant by consensus, re-hashing the original debate etc., etc., etc.,etc!! Its boring for God’s sake. Please, give it a rest. You are driving people mad and have been for weeks with your endless reiteration of points of view. I’m not even interested anymore what way this decision goes. You’ve spent far too long on this subject. (end of rant). Leaky  Caldron  18:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Crazynast 20:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

How about we agree to write zero about the RFC, and zero about anything related to the RFC, and zero about the text that is the subject of the RFC until the current closing process is completed? People who do otherwise force other people to do otherwise. Time to chill out. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like an excellent suggestion, it would give folks a time to rest up a bit prior to taking up the issues anew. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Amen. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If anybody wants to suggest other wording than any yet mentioned above, they are welcome to do so; that's what the sections are for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. But speaking only for myself, I'm of the opinion that the cycle of discussions has become less productive lately, and that a break would do everyone some good. My intention is to review the RfC closure closely and then do some thinking before engaging in these issues again. Leaky caldron has a point, but to me, it's not weeks, it's been months, and I fear that much of the progress made during the crafting of the RfC proposal may be lost unless care is taken to not let things get out of hand. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll follow Tryptofish........and that's the way it is. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * { --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point, somebody putting forth something that starts with an implication of their preferred result of the RFC and then saying "let's chart a course based on that assumption" is probably trying to affect the RFC, knowing that the closers are probably watching this, when then pushes other persons to respond accordingly and keep this going. That's why my proposal is "How about we agree to write zero about the RFC, and zero about anything related to the RFC, and zero about the text that is the subject of the RFC until the current closing process is completed? People who do otherwise force other people to do otherwise." Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. So how 'bout them Cowboys?! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and (for those who enjoy or celebrate it) Happy Thanksgiving!  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you were my inspiration
I present for your consideration User:Crazynas/rfc (talk) Crazynast 23:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed for 'media releases as SPS'
Hi friends. IMO, there is a need to qualify the Note 5, which is a sweeping statement. Would e.g. press releases by reputed sources like White House or 10 Downing Street or large companies like Apple or Microsoft or reputed charitable foundations like Nobel Foundation or Ford Foundation or Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation etc. be WP:SPS? So if White House releases some information (which is also quoted by other RS), would it be wrong to quote the White House source, and correct to quote the secondary source? Similarly, if there is a POV by the Nobel Foundation why Gandhi did not get a Nobel Prize, would it be wrong to include this source for an article on Gandhi? Thanks. --Tinpisa (talk) 07:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These will be pure self-published sources. It's always better to ensure that secondary sources that have analysed these press releases are quoted, rather than just the plain and simple replication of such press releases. Wifione  Message 07:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Also, it's hard to see how the text the footnote references, "take care," is too sweeping, when it should be "take extreme care." Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the clarification. I asked this question, as I have seen a blanket reversal being applied to SPS, without giving a thought to the 'take care'! :-) So probably they are right! (I may mention, that many a time, especially for something that took place long ago, such as Gandhi's omission by the Nobel Foundation, there are very few RS - you can find blogs or websites, but few RS) Thanks once again! --Tinpisa (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a noticeboard for this WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard Fifelfoo (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Probably you meant the Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, as the question I asked was hypothetical. Thanks once again! --Tinpisa (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There's never really a straight answer to a hypothetical reliability question. Context is vital. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is, however, a very simple answer to the first half of this hypothetical question: all press releases are self-published, by definition.
 * Also, Tinpisa will probably want to read WP:Secondary does not mean independent, and perhaps WP:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources. The identity of the publisher is completely unrelated to whether the source is a secondary one.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really see such things as self-published by definition - it's not obvious that the Gates Foundation would have any less of an editorial process than a specialized journal, for example, when publishing, say, a newsletter about their researchers. A factual statement about some event from the White House may well be more reliable than the Fox News report.  Questions that seem important to me are, did multiple eyeballs go over the publication before it went out, and more philosophically, is anybody responsible for making sure that the information is correct, besides the person who wrote the text? Wnt (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Having an editorial process" is not what makes something non-self-published. See self-publishing.  You only need to answer one question to know whether something is self-published:  is the entity that wrote it ("the author") the same as the entity that made it public ("the publisher")?
 * "Self-published" is not an alternative spelling for "non-reliable". The Gates Foundation's press releases are both self-published and reliable (for the kinds of purposes that editors would normally put them to).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Films, viewers, and sources
If a film is a source or the actual topic for an article, but no verifiable source exists about some or any point (plot, names, whatever), is it not the editors, who have seen the movie, now becoming the source? How is this handled? Even if I trust an editor to be well-intended, what if he makes a mistake? How is this addressed?

And while on the topic, something similar: say a book is out of print and an editor is writing about it, how do we verify what is being written? Thanks for your attention.MartinezMD (talk) 02:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Films are verifiable sources. You can buy the DVD or borrow it from a library. Out of print books may be obtained from libraries or used book stores. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So do we have to obtain a film to verify what another editor writes in every article or do we just trust the editor? That is my question in essence. MartinezMD (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * whether you trust them is editorial judgement plus the level of assumption of good faith. Extraordinary claims generally require extraordinary sources. The topic of an article isn't reliable for notability. Primary sources, ie the topic of the article, are reliable for some claims and not others. I'd be more concerned about large summaries depending entirely on the film or analytical claims or interpretations derived from the film. Films about other things, like documentaries, are reliable about their topic to the extent the film was high quality and editorially overseen. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Martinez, think of it this way... if you came across a citation to a book you did not have, how would you deal with it... you would either have to obtain a copy of the book or trust the editor who added the citation. Films are no different than books in this regard.  Of course, a lot depends on what is being said about the film.  Descriptive statements about the film (plot summaries, names of people who appear in the credits, etc) can be cited to the film because this is an appropriate use of the primary source... analytical claims or interpretations derived from the film,  on the other hand, require secondary sources (per WP:No original research). Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. As a further observation on verifiability, in reading articles, I have often wished for more specific citations to exactly where the summarized parts can be found in the original work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The film is a reliable, but primary, source for its contents. You treat it exactly like you would treat someone using a novel as a source of information about the novel.  See Identifying and using primary and secondary sources for examples.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

While we're waiting ...
Here's something to read. An article in the Malta Independent that touches on "verifiability, not truth". While I agree with much of what the author says, this is not presented to make any particular point, just for interest. -- J N  466  02:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. An editorial about Wikipedia's verifiability policy, written by the Minister of Justice and Home Affairs of an EU state. The next step is UN observer status. Hans Adler 09:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad the paper doesn't allow comments. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An article without a talk page! North8000 (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, of course the question is, what does Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici mean by "truth?" He doesn't define it and frankly I am a little skeptical about how any politician defines and uses the word "truth." The title of the op-ed includes "truth or fiction" as if this were the only choice.  This signals that Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici is not very well-educated since of course when we say "not truth" we do not mean "fiction."  We explain what we mean by "not truth" and maybe we can do a better job but I would bet real money that Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici just ead the first sentence of the policy and has never spent much time really asking how he defines truth and whether his own definition stands up.  Too bad Socrates is not around when we need him.


 * As he points out, WP competed with and has suprassed Nupedia. Unlike Nupedia and other encyclopedias like EB we do not require editors to have PhDs and we do not have editorial boards. So we do not claim the authority that EB claims.  But we have something EB does not have &mdash; total transparency.  One can read the talk oage and see how editorial decisions were made.  One can go through an article's edit history to see what earlier versions looked like.  WP's biggest expense, its servers, cost so much not just because we have so many editors and so many articles but because we keep records of every edit to every page and kep them available to any reader.


 * I think we are much better off playing to our strengths than to our weaknesses. If we do not demand that editors have PhDs or that edits be reviewed by an editorial board of PhDs, I do not think we should even try to claim the kind of authority EB or Nupedia have.  Our strenght is transparency and this is what "Verifiability not truth" is all about: readers do not accept the claims forwarded by an article because the author's article claims to be an authority.  Instead, readers are given the sources of of our claims and are free to check our sources and evaluate them independently.  This is not "fiction," it is transparency (although it does not surprise me that a politician would confuse the two) and I think we should be proud of it, boast of it, and not compromise on it.  If someone wants authority, they can read EB.  Our strength is not measured by how close we are to EB but precisely all the things that makes us different from EB.  If people want to read EB they can.  Every other encyclopedia I know of follows the EB model.  I am glad that there is one encyclopedia that provides a radical alternative to that model.  Our differences are our strengths. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well said! --Nuujinn (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll resist commenting on the comments about the wording that is subject of the current RFC. But overall, well said.  I think that the 30,000 foot view is that requiring verifiability as a criteria for inclusion of content is the main thing that what makes an "anyone can edit" encyclopedia work. Without that it would be full of junk and just 10% trustworthy rather than 90% trustworthy as it is.   I think that the writer of the original article missed that. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed reading it! I was expecting a harsh criticism of (us), but it was overall pretty positive, and interesting. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the most interesting sentence to be: In fact, there are a number of editors who are tasked with identifying misinformation or intervening in cases where contributors or users fail to reach agreement over their conflicting views. Presumably this means that admins intervene in content disputes directly, instead of when they are dressed up as civility disputes. Would it were so! Maybe now it is clear that an outside parliamentarian thinks this is logical, it may happen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "I do not think we should even try to claim the kind of authority EB or Nupedia have." Agreed. For further illustration of bad Wikipedia info and good transparency, see Christian Science Monitor for 11/11/11 - Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A great example! And apparently an example of bad Wiki-factoid that has been corrected.  Maybe we should provide a link to Wikiblame in the V policy? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a helpful idea. A Wikiblame link could be quite useful in the policy (perhaps with a ref. to the CSM article.)  Could you propose language? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That is disgusting! The link suggests eating canned ravioli. Euch! PRL42 (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not as bad as it sounds. I think it gets taken out the can before you eat it. --FormerIP (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it even gets warmed up. But I like it cold in the can myself. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheer up; I've had canned haggis. Once. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whew, you are tough! If someday I ever actually see haggis I would consider myself to be tough. North8000 (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another good example of Wikipedia truth burying real truth is the number of sites out there that credit "Erica Feldman" and a Mr "Gutgold" with the "invention of the hair straightener". . Made up in Wikipedia, now on countless hair and beauty websites, and in one book. Citogenesis in action. (The original name, before the vandalism, was Madam C. J. Walker.) -- J N  466  22:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "In fact there are a number of editors who are tasked with identifying misinformation"…"no attempts are made to verify the content of displayed pages. There is also no information filtering system to check the truth or inaccuracy of material derived from other sources."


 * One of these things is not like the other. Either we have people who are tasked with identifying inaccuracies, or we don't.  It is not possible for us to both have people looking for misinformation and also make no attempt to verify the contents.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Given how terrible our articles on Malta typically are (The Malta Independent and Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici are about typical), it's amazing anybody on the island has such a high opinion of us. Malta is one area where there really IS pretty much no content-checking. Example: in August 2009 an IP added a section to the Fgura article entitled Until recently our article on Fgura had a section titled "The Shortest Route from Fgura Centre to Valletta by Car". It lasted two years before being removed (by me). The contradiction is that what happens on some articles is completely different to what happens on others. It's endemic within the structure of Wikipedia - a volunteer project requires somebody to volunteer to look for problems, and we don't have enough competent/active/content-focused editors to do it. Alzarian16 (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles that draw small numbers of editors are usually the worst (unless they happen to draw that one person who is a real expert on the topic AND understands our core content policies AND has lots of free time - which almost never ever happens). WP assums that even experts make mistakes or have biases, so it depends on large numbers of people with diverse skills, where many editors cancel out one another's mistakes and add multiple views etc. The problem is that when WP boasts about the large number of editors it is ignoring the fact that some articles have been subject to the attention of thousands and others, just a few.  No matter how good our policies are, what the Malta article, liks so many other articles needs, is dozens of well-informed editors who are aware of or have access to different points of view.  This was the brilliant idea motivating a "wiki" pedia, and it turns out (so far) to be our biggest weakness. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the "experts" qualifiers I would add: "And can survive the abuse while they learn that their approaches in the real world (such as application of expertise) will get them treated as pond-scum policy violators in Wikipedia. Not that I would fundamentally change policies in that area, just a provide a better intro, and a draw a line for OR/Synth that better matches how good articles actually get created. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Re experts, here's an extreme case

BARNHARDT How can you be so sure? Have you tested this theory?

KLAATU (with a slight smile) I find it works well enough to get me from one planet to another.
 * On the one hand don't bite, but on the other hand ask for a reference, unless they insist and have a 9 ft. scary robot that can destroy the planet. As for the less threatening human experts, some might have questionable personal theories or facts that they think they can publish in Wikipedia when not publishable  elsewhere.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the fact that articles in less-obvious areas still need a lot of work is a simple statement that Wikipedia is still being built.  And that articles in higher prominence non-contentious areas being in pretty good shape is a statement about where "mission accomplished" applies.  And the fact that articles on contentious topics are generally eternal failures is a statement about where tweaks in policies/guidelines /approaches would be beneficial. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I genuinely do believe any page can be improved upon so I agree with you that policies can be tweaked to be made more useful. In the case of V, I think making more explicit how citing reliable sources is necessary to maintain transparency, and it is the resulting traqnsparency that makes it possible to improve articles (by making it easier to identify defects), rather than an end in itself, is one such tweak.  Also, I think making clearer what some of the other criteria for inclusion are (that a view expressed by a reliable source be significant, that it be properly attributed and put into context, for example) is another such tweak I think will help.


 * But with respect, I think that the reason why experts are treated with such abuse is because the ratio of editors who are experts on such topics as Malta (or a host of other topics) to editors who are morons is still too low. We can continue to be the encydlopedia anyone can edit without there being a considerable number of morons (or bullies), but we can try to recruit more of the other kind of editor &mdash; this is beyond the scope of this policy, but it is important, and something WP has never be very good at.  The fact is, in the US as well as most European countries, the percentage of resources and people devoted to research that is pure social science or pure humanities is just a fraction of the that/those devoted to the physical and life sciences, and trades like medicine, law and business administration.  This means that there are very few people doing university-level research on Maltese history, sociology, and literature (just to stick to the example).  True, any editor who understands the major trends in the social sciences and humanities should be able to find and provide accurate accounts of this research on Malta, but my point is that this is still a small fraction of those who come to us with well-developed research skills.  And as I see it, this means that the community of editors of WP needs to do much better than represent the skills and interests of the general public.  We would need to have a disproportionately high percentage of people knowledgable about and skilled in researching the social sciences and the humanities.  I do not mean to exclude other areas of weakness; I just happen to know that these are areas in which we have definite weaknesses.


 * I agree that WP is still being built but my point is that as the number of editors grow, the percentage of editors with some crucial research skills actually shrinks. I do not have any sympathy for those editors with PhDs who wish to use Wikipedia to publish original research and to use their background as a club against any critic, rather than good, transparent, properly-sourced writing.  Anyone with so much expertise should be smart enough to read and understand our policies as written.  But I have a lot of sympathy for editors who come trying to give due weight to significant views supported by reliable sources but constantly have to argue against editors who think that editing a web-based encyclopedia is as simple as surfing the web and paraphrasing something written on one web-page, on one of our pages, editors who think that whatever is available through a Google Books snippet have the same weight as books published by major academic presses and written by the leading scholars in the field and not available on-line.  Tweaking policies will help, but only so much.  People need not to feel alone.  They need to feel that they are collaborating with other people who know where and how to find the leading and mainstream scholarship, other people who are not trying to push a POV but wish only to push the views of leading scholars on the areas of their own expertise and research.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree.  But I think that there are some other easier fixes that would help. Same involve other policies, I've been trying to build summaries and suggested fixes at Wp:Strategic issues with core policies.  But the one involving directness-of-relevance is one that wp:npov could help. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding editing by new-editor experts, I think the most useful thing would be a welcome/explanatory page which explains how Wikipedia is different than the real world would be helpful. Beyond that I think that making policies less prone to abuse for battling purposes would be a big help.  A good place to start there would be a clearer definition of what crosses the line between summarization from sources and OR.  Actually, I didn't say that right, since all summarization and all material that isn't a direct quote is a violation of wp:nor if taken strictly, which is what battlers will do. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think your idea about a welcome/explanatory page is very constructive, a great idea.


 * I agree with you about the need for some protection against the abuse of policies. I have argued that the degree to which a source is needed, or even specific attribution, is a function of the degree of conflict on the talk page.  If editors working on an article consider a claim uncontroversial, it does not need a citation.  If it is a little controversial, or POV, it needs a citation.  If it is more controversial, it needs direct attribution.  If it is highly controversal, it needs a quote.  I argued this and iothers agreed with me, but more people working on the policy pages disagreed with me.  I think if someone believes a claim needs a citation or quote, they need to explain on the talk page why they think this is necessary, what makes it controversial.  I was not arguing against providing citations with quotes, I was only saying that another editor needed to provide a reason.  But the argument went the other way, putting the entire burden on whoever adds content.  Well, if other people watching this page think that my approach is constructive, I would be all for making this explicit in the policy.


 * I would just add that adding citations is always valuable, not for transparency reasons (my argument above) but as an edicational resource. In other words, when editing an encyclopedia, citations should not simply be "proof" that someone holds this view (where any quotation from almost any source is sufficient); it should be a path for readers who wish to go deeper than the encyclopedia article in learning about the subject.  From this perspevctive, sources whould not simply be published (our minimum requirement), they should widely be considered to be the best source for representing this view.  I think it really degrades the encyclopedia, when someone follows a citation to a website that meets our minimum criteria of proving that someone really said this, but that in every other way is less informative than our article.  Our sources whould be better than our articles, not worse! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of that. Except maybe that your idea for implementation of "the more controversial the claim, the stronger the sourcing needed and visa versa" idea might be a bit too specific for general use. I think that a structural implementation of the of the ""the more controversial the claim, the stronger the sourcing needed and visa versa" might be too big and too difficult to do at this point.   But a general note/recommendation to this effect I think is a doable addition. And with the related mention that the 1. degree to which the source fulfills wp:rs criteria, and the 2. knowlegability and 3. objectivity of the source with respect to the statement which cited it are indicators of the strength of that instance of sourcing. It wouldn't attempt to give a way to judge the latter two, just a recommendation to take them into consideration.  I say "instance of sourcing" rather than "source" because a source that is good in one area may be weak in a different area. If a published Steven Hawking book wrote about what he thinks Britney Spears' favorite color is, that would be a weaker source in that area than on matters of physics. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can give an even better example - in A Brief History of Time Stephen Hawking repeats an old saw about someone who says that the world is supported by the back of a turtle and that the turtle is supported on the back of a turtle and when pressed as to what the turtle is standing on, says "it is turtles all the way down." Now, I am pretty sure that this is a folktale from S. E. Asia but I am not sure; it is certainly not original to hawking, and Hawking does not provide an accurate source.  He doesn't have to - his book is on black holes and cosmology, it is not about myth and folklore.  He is using the story to make a rhetorical point.  There is no reason to think that he is an expert on folklore and I do not think he claims to be.  But the fact remains, he provides the story in his book, and as part of the story provides the setting (where the story is from).  Now, I would have no objection to someone citing this book as an example of how this story is so well-known that even a UK physicist knows it.  But Hawking's attribution of the story, where he says it is from, is just wrong.  My view is, "so what?"  Why would anyone think Hawking has conducted original research on mythology or folklore, or that this story is the result of his own research.  Since he provides no citations, there is no way to know where he got it from.  My worry is that while to my way of thinking it should be obvious to any encyclopedia editor that of all the things Hawking is a reliable source on, mythology just is not one of them, there are some wikipedians who (1) will think that since Hawking is a PhD and the book is famous, and he writes this in his book, he is the proper source for the origins of this folktale and (2) will insist that since the book is a reliable source, it can be used to substantiate any claim made in it, even this claim that is not actually in any way related to his research.  I think this is something we need to provide clearer guidance on.  I am sure you are right when you write, "Except maybe that your idea for implementation of "the more controversial the claim, the stronger the sourcing needed and visa versa" idea might be a bit too specific for general use" &mdash; I lost the argument, after all.  But if you can come up with better wording to address this problem I would be glad to work with you on making this paricular tweak to this and/or the RS guidelines. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just an aside, there is a Wikipedia article Turtles all the way down. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article on everything. See WP:Wikipedia has an article on everything!. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An interesting, if indiscriminate, collection of uses of the meme, collected from primary sources (Hawking, Russell, Thoreau). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To Slrubenstein. Here's my first poor attempt at a draft.
 * Generally, the strength of sourcing should be increased for statements which are contested. Contributors to the strength of sourcing are strength in the fulfillment of wp:rs criteria, objectivity and expertise with respect to the text that cited it, and the quantity of supporting sources.
 * North8000 (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * @North8000, I like it - I would support adding it to the policy, but we should let others weigh in.
 * @ the others, yes I once edited that article - but as Sept says, it is just a collection of uses of the story from various sources, reading the page one can only conclude it is a Western folk-tale. Apparently none of us have been able to find any actually reliable sources on the origins of the story. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like you were right re Hawking. But the article is a very good illustration of WP wanting to go in contradictory directions. One the one hand, we want to have everything attributable to a reliable source. On the second, we want to "have an article on everything", and so we write articles about things that reliable sources have not, as far as we are able to tell, adequately covered. Neither of those things are necessarily wrong. But bring them together and you have a difficulty. --FormerIP (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Break (strength of sources)

 * I think he meant the arbitration committee. It's actually a typical example of how reliable press sources get things wrong. Or have you never noticed the number of press articles that get basic things about Wikipedia wrong? I found a great quote on this once:
 * "What people outside do not appreciate is that a newspaper is like a soufflé, prepared in a hurry for immediate consumption. This of course is why whenever you read a newspaper account of some event of which you have personal knowledge it is nearly always inadequate or inaccurate. Journalists are as aware as anyone of this defect; it is simply that if the information is to reach as many readers as possible, something less than perfection has often to be accepted." Source: New Scientist, 1965
 * I quoted this here once, and Scott MacDonald replied with an even better quote of his own:
 * ''"This assumes that production speed is the only reason for the resultant inaccuracies. Actually, I'd say newspapers are more like commercial fast-food than soufflé. It isn't just that they are prepared in haste, it is that unwholesome additives and artificial sweeteners are added to true content, in order to make the whole thing more tasty. No one really asks whether the result is edifying or healthy, because it is generally consumed with a pinch of (even more superfluous) salt. At any rate, an unsuitable source for writing enduring encyclopaedia content."
 * Bon appetit! -- J N  466  22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Second attempt at a draft: (I realized that my original proposal could spawn a numbers game of weak sourcings.)


 * Generally, the strength of sourcing should be increased for statements which are contested. Contributors to the strength of sourcing are strength in the fulfillment of wp:rs criteria, objectivity and expertise with respect to the text that cited it, and the quantity of supporting sources which have the above qualities.

North8000 (talk) 12:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, but this needs a lot of work. Contributors is misleading; most people will read that as human beings at least on the first pass. Incorporating WP:RS (a guideline, for good reasons) into policy will be extremely controversial; better to pick the criteria you mean than to give RS the power to rewrite policy. Expertise with respect to the text that cited it can hardly be what you mean; try something about expertise on the subject.


 * But the more I think about redrafting it, the more I feel inclined to leave this to WP:RS; policies should give goals, not instructions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with including this at the RS guidelines - I just think we need to say this, somewhere. I appreciate North8000's efforts.  PMAnderson, given your concerns would you mind taking a stab at redrafting it?  If we here can whip it into a form we can all agree on, I would feel more confident about taking it to RS as a real proposal.  North8000 made a good-faith effort and I would hate to see it go to waste.  If you think that this can be improved upon, please improve it, and then let's see where it belongs. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was originally planning to redraft it; but the more I looked at, the harder it seemed to get it to the generality and comprehensiveness which policy should have. (That's why I think it should go in RS, where sound but incomplete advice is fine.) If somebody can put what we want to do here in simple language, that would be the first step towards good policy. If I think of a way of attack, I'll post. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that just 'advice" is the way to go. I think that this is a sound and very useful framework. It sort of follows what for most intuitive unspoken/not-put-into-words common sense would indicate.  I've found that putting such into words is a great guide for writing policies/guidelines/laws/recommendations etc.  "Advice" in a key guideline does have influence, I think that if we tried to upgrade the wording at this point to something suitable for a higher level than advice /recommendations the process would die under it's own weight. North8000 (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, how about something like this (either as part of WP:CHALLENGE or linking to it):
 * Challenged claims must have citations; they ought to be cited to stronger sources than unchallenged claims tend to be. The strongest sources are secondary,  independent of the subject, written by an acknowledged expert on the subject at hand, with no axe to grind (on the subject at issue), and published by a medium with a  reputation for fact-checking. Other things being equal, a large number of sources, representing diverse views, are stronger than a single source; but they need not be introduced into the article - it suffices that they demonstrably exist.


 * I think that covers the points North8000 made, but there are others; for example, when several sources on the same fringe simply cite each other, they are not much stronger than one. But we are not a class in source criticism, especially (what we need) criticism of secondary sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think "independent of the subject" will confuse many people - could we just say "independent" and leave it at that? I still think it is also important to acknowledge wikiprocess.  I am a little uncomfortable saying that any challenge demands a citation because I think that challenges cannot be aribratrary.  People should at least have to provide a reason for why they challenge the claim, I really do not think this is too much to ask.  Also, different reasons can lead to different kinds of sources.  I think that there needs to be a place for discussion on the talk page (in principle, I think that we should encourage collaborative editing over drive-by editing).  But maybe I am a minority of one?  If others see anything of value in my point, I would be happy for someone else to word it (I mean, I am not insisting on any particular wording). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no particular attachment to any wording in that draft; I only did it because you asked. However, as a matter of substance: Saying that challenged claims must be cited is the present policy: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * While I support the sentiment behind the proposed text, it's unfortunately a gift to POV pushers.
 * Challenged claims...ought to be cited to stronger sources than unchallenged claims tend to be: If I "challenge" the claims about how many fingers are normally on the human hand, then that known-to-three-year-olds fact really needs an especially strong source?
 * The strongest sources are secondary, independent of the subject, written by an acknowledged expert on the subject at hand, with no axe to grind: Now try to explain to the anti-psychiatry fringe why we permit any peer-reviewed medical studies about any psychopharmaceutical product.  These POV pushers believe that these studies have been produced by people bribed by the pharmaceutical industry (there goes "independent"), that the purpose is subjugating the entire population ("axe to grind"), and that the true experts are the anti-psychiatry survivors.  At best, you've just shifted the discussion from what's a good source to, well, what's a good source.
 * I don't see any easy solution. I'm not sure that providing further words really addresses the problem.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose unpolemical (which is what I meant) instead of no axe to grind would help? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be an improvement over "axe to grind", but that's one problem out of many: What's independence?  Who's an expert?  And why should the existence of a (possibly bad-faith or plainly tendentious) challenge force editors to produce a super-strong source for some lightweight fact?
 * I'm still not convinced that any amount of text will actually solve the problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the Malta Independent article takes aim at a good point with the comment that "this factor could very well lead to a precarious situation where Wikipedia may be the start and conclusion of one’s reading and thus become the default replacement of the truth", but just misses it. I think that the main long-term danger with sourcing is that we end up breathing our own exhaust.  If someone adds a fact to an article, and a lazy journalist publishes it in a news article as fact, it is now a verifiable source that we can cite legitimately...  and we have a problem.  I don't think that inviting editors to debate "truth" willy-nilly is the answer though.  The answer is something more prosaic, like putting a higher value on high quality sources that use inline citations to back up their statements, and including a few more caveats in the text when citing lower quality sources.  Ultimately, though, the exhaust-breathing can't and shouldn't be entirely eliminated - we already make the decision to leave unsourced facts stand for a while sometimes when we think the editor is probably right, and if one or more journalists are willing to put their own reputations, such as they are, on the line to back up that position, it gradually takes on the status of a more reliable guess. Wnt (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This was not so much of an issue eight years ago. At this point, though, it might well be necessary to add to this policy or the RS guideline that we cannot use as the source for an article any publication that uses the Wikipedia article on the same topic as a source.  I think any reasonable person would say that "this goes without saying," but hey, maybe we really do need to say this.  I think that it is almost as serious a problem that we are breathing in other people's exhuast by which I mean relying too much on material available on the web.  In some cases web-sites can be great sources for technical information or once-rare texts (e.g. the complete works of Marx and Engels now online).  But some articles are really just compendia of information available elsewhere on the web.  This often just an inappropriately low standard of sourcing, and I think a little silly - the minimum requirement for one to read a Wikipedia article is that they have access to the internet.  If we know they have access to the internet, we can assum that whatever we can find just by googling, they can find by themselves.  And in most academic fields, the important sources are usually not easy to find by googling. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That's at WP:CIRCULAR. Neither of us realized this until I looked, which underlines one of this page's basic problems: it's so long now that nobody reads it through. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I know we have that policy, but it is only simple to apply if the reporter says he got the information from Wikipedia. Frequently news reports don't list their sources, and things stated as fact might have come from anywhere.  I understand that it would be very slovenly and unprofessional for a reporter to take an unsourced fact from Wikipedia and report it as truth, but ... a lot of such things seem to happen nowadays.  Especially if it is considered merely "background" and not the main thrust of a story.  A reporter wouldn't do it when reporting the name of the woman a candidate had an affair with, but when it comes to where he was born, how many basketball championships his team won in high school ... all sorts of little details that then naturally will be picked out and cited for the article. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I should mention that Wp:Strategic issues with core policies demonstrates total misunderstanding of what RS and NOR mean. Take this piece of nonsense: "For example,. Britney Spears's (published book) biography would qualify as a RS under wp:ver/wp:nor. And most would agree that it would have real world reliability regarding a statement on what Britney's favorite color is. Under wp:ver/wp:nor, that biography would also be a RS for a statement on the origin of the universe." (sic) SAY WHAT?!?

North8000, WP:SOURCE expressly states "The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability. (...) Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science." How anyone could seriously say that a book put out by Three Rivers Press (not known as an academic imprint of Random House) written by an entertainer would qualify as a "RS for a statement on the origin of the universe" is beyond me. Certainly it would qualify as a RS regarding Britney Spears and perhaps something regarding the music and entertainment industries but little else.

Contrast this with Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World also published by Random House--Carl Sagan was a noted astronomer, astrophysicist, and cosmologist. He certainly would qualify as a "RS for a statement on the origin of the universe" even though there is no indication of this coming out of Random House's academic imprint.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bruce, you are missing my point.  Specifically, you are agreeing with my premise which as my point (that such is NOT an actually a reliable source on the origin of the universe) but then writing as if I had asserted the opposite.  My point is the wp:ver/wp:nor as written do NOT have a provision for making that distinction. According to it/them, once sources  meet the minimum threshold for rs and primary/secondary criteria, all sources are equal. North8000 (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * North, you are missing the facts. The second sentence of WP:V directly prohibits what you claim it encourages.  I have fixed that garbage by supplying your essay with a direct quotation:  "appropriate for the content in question".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Speaking of facts, this very point was raised way back in Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_2 and was brought up again in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_52. It is this "soundbiting" of WP:V that I see again and again and again is one of the reasons I have been suggesting rewriting the whole thing into the following:


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px;font-size:95%;margin-left:20px"


 * The threshold for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia mainspace (articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions) without exception is verifiability— ie being attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. This requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.(See the discussion about sources in WP:NOR that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources.)  For how to write citations, see Citing sources.  Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.
 * }


 * Grouping all the major points into one paragraph makes is harder to see one view and run with it while missing other equally relevant points.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Original references would be highly desirable, even if respectable modern ones are given.
I've found that looking over Wikipedia, while trying to research electromagnetic theory, that there are numerous statements about famous experiements or papers, followed by references to modern books, when in fact the original paper was probably published decades ago. You will see things like "XYZ showed in 1782", followed by a references in a book written in the 20th or 21st century. It would be good to have a reference to the paper that XYZ wrote in 1782. I feel there should be more emphasis put on the original references, and authors should be encouraged to provide original references, not just a reference to a modern book or paper which states the so-called "fact". Of course, there's nothing wrong with having more modern references too, which are often easier to obtain, and in some cases easier to understand. Is there any chance of changing the policy to encourage the inclusion of original references? How about having a new tag, to indicate that an original reference is desirable? So if someone references 17th century results by a 20th century book, we have a tag like "cite-original" to indicate an original citation would be desirable. I often feel original citations are missing, but can't add the "fact" tag, as someone has actually provided a modern reference. Drkirkby (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the primary source, the item written by the experimenter? In Wikipedia those deliberately get a more limited use. North8000 (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * These items are best put as "Further Reading" Fifelfoo (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do understand me correctly. I do believe adding original references to be a good thing. Adding them as "Further Reading" is not necessarily so helpful as inline references, as you won't necessarily know what reference has what you are looking for. Lets say we write "XYZ proved in 1873 that A+B=C", then have under "Further Reading" several papers of XYZ dated 1873. What one proves A+B=C? Without an inline citation, they are of more limited use. In any case, when I look at the early experimenters of electromagnetic theory (Gauss, Coulomb, Maxwell etc), usually there is no references or "Further Reading" to the original papers - just modern books. Often when a story gets told many times the story change, as a game of Chinese Whipers will show. I believe exactly the same thing probably happens in the scientific literature. Hence having a reference to the original material is useful. Drkirkby (talk) 11:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has had a problem of users attempting to verify off primary sources (ie: scientific papers where a proof is presented, but not yet appreciated or seconded). Scientific articles need to be written from secondary sources where scientists evaluate other scientists work.  So a scientific article needs to cite a contemporary work for A+B=C.  However, references and footnotes aren't just for verification!  They're for explanation and additional information not worth containing in the body of the document.  I'd suggest one of the two options:  Citation 1: Modern appreciation; Citation 2: Original proof; OR, Citation: For the Modern appreciation [Modern appreciation]; Scientist originally demonstrated this in the Original proof [Original proof].  I prefer the second method because it explains to the reader which source verifies the statement, and which source is the statement.  I would suggest that this only be used in core and fundamental articles where the original text is of interest.  Using it in Fred's (2012) proof that A+B=C doesn't benefit the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (After edit conflict) Please see the discussion of the use of primary sources at WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources can be useful, and in some cases may be all that is available (but then, the topic may not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia). Primary sources, however, cannot be used to establish the significance of what they cover. Establishing the significance of and interpreting events, discoveries, etc. requires coverage by independent third-parties. We need the secondary sources to establish the significance of the contents of primary sources. Primary sources themselves often are obscure, and the points for which they have become famous may not be obvious to the uninformed reader. -- Donald Albury 11:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree primary sources are sometimes obscure, but I still maintain there should be references to them. Of course I have nothing against having secondary sources, which might explain the significance of the primary source. Many times things are written on Wikipedia and more than one reference is given. I see nothing wrong with that. But why not make one of them the original primary source? I think we might have to agree to differ on this. Drkirkby (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that some folks already agreed with what you just described. But the overarching point is that primary sources seldom (= only is special narrowly defined ways) fulfill the wp:verifiability requirement and never fulfill the wp:notabiity requirement. And in disputed areas they are usually do not carry weight (except when used in those narrowly defined ways) because they have not been vetted by other reliable sources. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there is a misunderstanding here regarding primary and secondary here as scholarly papers are a mixture of primary and secondary and some primary material has been vetted by other reliable sources. The Albert Einstein's famous but still primary "God doesn't play dice" quote immediately comes to mind.  Horace Miner's (sarcastic) primary interpretations in "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema" is another such example.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure that Drkirby is talking about what we call primary sources. Drkirby seems to be referring to publications; these sometimes fall under our "secondary source" category.

I think we should take a pragmatic view. If we refer to Darwin's The Origin of Species to rerpesent what Darwin wrote, I think it is better to provide a citation to The Origin of Species, which by the way is still in print, and not to a college textbook on biology. If someone is making an argument about what Darwin meant, then this would violate OR and they should look to see how historians of science or contemporary biologists interpret Darwin. I think that the standard against OR needs to be unambiguous, but how and when it applies ought to be decided by editors working on an article, who are best qualified to determine whether the passage of our article is reporting what Darwin wrote or reporting a view of what Darwin wrote. Many articles on Biblical-related articles provide direct quotes from the Bible and references to book, chapter and verse. We have done this for years and no one has disputed it. Yet obviously, such quotes can be abused to forward an interpretation of the Bible. Our editors need to take responsibility for distinguishing between a straightforward descriptive claim versus an interpretation.

If there is a huge literature on different interpretations of Maxwell's equations, obviously we need to report those different interpretations with appropriate citations. But if we are referring to an equation that was first published in a work by Maxwell, why not cite that publication? The original publication is not always synonymous with primary source as used in our NOR policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are useful; the way to cite both is to say " X proved A+B=C in 1873 " That way we have both the modern source attesting to what X actually managed to prove (often controversial), and the paper in which X did it. Links are to be encouraged, but are conveniences. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on the statement.  If it's "Maxwell's equation are:....." then I think that Maxwell's writing would be the most authoritative source for that.   If it something like "the main electromagnetic theory equations are:......" then I think a secondary source would be the most authoritative for that statement. North8000 (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think the key point Drkirby is raising has to do with WPs value as an educational resource rather than OR.  I think we need to make an explicit distinction between original source and primary source and also provide the kind of guidance Pmanderson and North8000 provide.  Should both be done in RS, or should the former be in NOR and the latter in RS?  Or here? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether you are encompassing all aspects of it by calling it educational, but I do believe that giving citations to original sources can be more encouraged in Wikipedia, at least a bit. I think it is actively discouraged as a misunderstanding sometimes. I often find that editors think it is absolutely forbidden. If we could at least get the message out that this is not true, then common sense would do the rest. Just for example, I often work on subjects concerning famous old books by people like philosophers, and it is often not just handy but even necessary to use primary sources a bit if you want to make a useful article. Trying to explain these works just based on 20th century scholarship would make Wikipedia a very poor source for such subjects. (A balanced survey of 20th century scholarship on, say, Plato, would probably lead readers to think the Republic is about gender politics, and generally anything to do with America.) I am not saying we should not mention modern political interests in Plato, but I do think quoting Plato himself is necessary sometimes. Indeed, for some old works, starting with primary materials seems a good way to start the first stub, with the modern commentary to be added later. Anyway, concerning many subjects, primary material can be an important way of making the subject comprehensible. This does not mean we should only use primary materials, but there is no ban on primary materials.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Maxwell of course isn't reliable as to why we should cite Maxwell in the first place. Weight, structure, notability and emphasis needs to come out of the secondary literature.  Andrew, you might like to look at science area editing's conception of "primary" and "secondary" sources.  I think this is always advisable when academics are producing genuinely new ideas, that we rely there on the field-specific structure of reception of these ideas.  Fifelfoo (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To Andrew, I agree. I think that the nuts and bolts of the policies/guidelines regarding use of primary sources are pretty good. But the overall wording has a "don't use them" tone which leads to many innocent and not-so-innocent mis-applications of the policy. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In other fields, primary sources might be used more judiciously. In history and closely related fields, the average wikipedian sees the permission to use primary sources as an open opportunity to create original research.  But this seems to be field specific, and I'm working with other excellent editors on a field specific guideline/essay to deal with this in history. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not field-specific, sadly. We see a lot of problems with primary sources in medicine-related articles. Commonly, it's some patient who has decided that he doesn't like the typical, evidence-based approach to ____, but some obscure, decades-old, speculative case study really appeals to him.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've seen pretty significant mis-readings in the other direction. For example, the ABC organization says in writing "our official policy regarding XYZ is:........".   And someone says that source being primary makes it an unsuitable source for the statement "The official policy of the ABC organization regarding XYZ is......" North8000 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A agree with Fifelfoo, generally. But this last example North8000 gives is clearly a misreading of policy.  Frankly, I think some people just do not read the policies.  I think a big problem at WP (since we are in a sharing mood) is that way too many editors read only the first paragraph of any page and edit on that basis.  I have no problem with the fact that a great many readers of the encyclopedia will read only the first paragraph or introductory section; that is their perogative.  But I think it is a reasonable expectation that anyone who wishes to write an encyclopedia article or contribute to the making of an encyclopedia should have enough of an attention span to read an entire article as well as the full text of our core policies (this, and the willingness to go to a library, are in my mind unenforcable but nevertheless my idea of the "minimum threshold" for editing an encyclopedia.  It is so so so so so much lower than the minimum requirements for contributing to any other encyclopedia, that I just do not see how anyone could take issue with them).  I do not see how any WP policy prohibits the use of an ABC web- or print-publication as a source for how ABC presents itself. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that those who want only the primary source read Maxwell's article, and compare it to Maxwell's equations, which links to it (indirectly; and the Royal Society PDF is so large that it will slow down many computers). He uses none of the standard notations we now use; he defines his own differentials as he goes along. This is understandable (del was still a crank notation for quaternions, and covariant notation did not exist); but it is a non-trivial job of originial research to check which of the equations are equivalent to the present set. Better to have a reliable source do it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

When talking about policy wording (more specifically about changes that can reduce current problems) I think that one needs to realize that most current problems aren't violation of the policy, and they aren't inability to understand the policy, they are deliberate mis-use of the policy away from either it's intent or it's actual wording. And the important policy wording choices determine how easy it it to mis-use it and thus frequency and degree of mis-use that will occur. And mis-use doesn't mean an evil misdeed, it's just means throwing whatever wording that sounds like it might work at their opponent. The above "primary" case came from a real example. Someone just deleting it saying it was because of primary sourcing. It took me a couple of man-hours (discussion etc.) to remedy the situation. If the victim isn't confidently knowledgeable about the policy, they will believe the misquote, and if they aren't willing to spend 2 hours on getting one policy properly applied on one sentence, the misquoter will win. An effective and common way to POV an article. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've run into people myself who seem to think that primary sources aren't valuable or usable.  While Wikipedia should limit how primary sources are used, they remain the definitive sources and we should always seek to have them. Wnt (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Identifying and using primary and secondary sources deals with this issue. We have had a serious problem with people who didn't realize that WP:Secondary does not mean independent and among people who think that "primary source" is an alternate spelling for "bad source".  Sometimes the primary source is the best source.
 * (I don't think that was Drkirby's point though; I think he just wanted to expand the list of citations a bit, to create a bibliography to original sources. I'd normally put those under ==Further reading== myself, but I wouldn't normally object to them being listed as a second WP:Inline citation.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I will be interested to see the suggestions Fifelfoo is working on. Will you post a little note here perhaps for example, or maybe at RSN Talk? BTW I do not have enormous concerns about this. I think like SLR indicates we can not cover all bad reading of policy, but there does seem to be a bit of a trend on this point so a useful essay might be helpful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:HISTRS is the policy under developent. It is meant to espouse the best practices developed at RS/N, and indicate the kind of writing appropriate for FA and A class articles. It is also meant as a tool to reduce the argumentative power of editors attempting to write based on non-scholarly sources and primaries. I hope editors find value in one example of field specific standards. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Original references/primary sources can be cited in WP but usually only in addition to a modern source. There are very good reasons to prefer modern sources. Original references even though interesting come with a lot of problems, because they are often outdated, may contain errors that got corrected later on and might be written in language or form that is harder to understand. That's why for relativity or the theory of evolution it is better to primarily rely on a good modern text book or recent exposes of those theories rather than Einstein's or Darwin's original publication. Another issue that for lesser known topics one could abuse the use of original references to push fringe theories, pov and even OR, i.e. using original references that have no acceptance, review or vetting by the scientific community or public.

For those reason normally WP requires a modern secondary source to be cited (mandatory) and the original reference may be cited in addition (optional). --Kmhkmh (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If I may be devil's advocate here, I think that while there is nothing definitely wrong with the above explanation, it seems to me to be the exact type of explanation which does lead to misunderstandings. And while the aim of the explanation is apparently to err on the side of safety in one direction, in order to avoid abuse in one direction, such explanations can equally be abused from the other direction (for example by people who want to delete a direct quote from an old author in order to make their favorite fringe theory more believable-looking on Wikipedia).
 * Between the lines it is saying that primary sources are always bad, and that is simply not true. There are obviously many cases where usage of primary sources is the best solution. For example, take any famous sentence from Aristotle which academics argue about, and let's say that you have to explain the controversy without quoting Aristotle himself: good or bad? I think it is obviously going to be bad. Just because something is recent and has been peer-reviewed does not mean it should automatically be inserted, and if it is inserted, the primary material should not automatically be deleted. You can find peer-reviewed remarks about Aristotle which will say almost anything you can imagine, many well-known authors have made ignorant asides about Aristotle, or Plato, or whoever. It would be insane to simply let people transcribe all of it blindly into Wikipedia, and even more insane to encourage such inserting to be accompanied by the automatic deletion of any framing quotations from the original authors. I know that is almost certainly not what anyone in this discussion is proposing, but the explanation above could perhaps be read that way.
 * More generally I think that trying to explain the best sources in terms of primary and secondary never seems to work, because describing the differences in all cases is more complicated than just explaining what the aims of appropriate sourcing are. I had a look at the draft Fifelfoo is working on and it also seems to have this problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you have not done so, please read WP:No original research. As that policy notes, there is nothing "wrong" with citing primary sources ... what is "wrong" is citing primary sources to support Original Research.  In broad terms, a primary source can (in limited situations) be cited for a quote, or for a purely descriptive statement as to what is contained in the source... but can not be cited for an analysis, interpretation or conclusion as to what the primary source says or means (for such statements you need a secondary source).  Even implying an interpretation or conclusion can constitute Original Research, and thus be problematic.
 * Now, because it is very easy to (inadvertently) create an analytical, interpretive or conclusionary statement when you use a primary source, WP:NOR strongly cautions against using them, encouraging secondary sources instead. Note, however, that the NOR policy does not "ban" primary sources.  We acknowledge that primary sources do have a place in Wikipedia... but that place is limited.  Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @andrew: You're reading wrongly between the lines. I wasn't arguing that "primary" sources are always bad (note the use of "normally"). WP allows them but it somewhat restricts their use in particular, when more modern usually "secondary" sources are available. In particular I was answering the suggestion of (primarily) using the original references instead of a modern textbook and the Darwin example (also Drkirkby's first posting), as this is something we definitely do not want for the reasons explained above. Finally yes - the quality (accuracy, reliability, notability, being up tp date and readable)) of a source is more important than its formal primary, secondary or tertiary status.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume this was directed at Andrew and not me... yes?
 * yes, didn't see i picked the wrong indent--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification Kmhkmh. I did guess that was your intention. Blueboar, when writing an article about Aristotle, I'd generally cite a good modern critical edition of Aristotle in order to finish a sentence "Aristotle said...", and not a secondary source. Nearly every modern commentator on Aristotle disagrees with all the others on something, and so when citing those guys I tend to attribute.
 * So you get a sequence like "Aristotle said [...]. This has been interpreted by Smith to mean he hated women while other authors such as Jones believe it means he was a feminist." Each case requires judgement. Any judgement about word choice, whether to use attribution, whether to say there is disagreement between sources, whether to say that a particular source does not need to be covered while another does, can perhaps be wikilawyered into being called OR and this would of course make WP impossible.
 * We generally apply OR accusations most strictly to editing decisions which result in the insertion of non-obvious assertions into WP. Quoting Aristotle as part of a text about Aristotle is not normally called OR in itself, although there might be ways it could become OR. (For example writing "But Aristotle said X which means the modern commentator is wrong.")
 * But is a good modern critical edition "primary"? In some ways it is the ultimate in "secondary". I think this could be argued forever, and that's why I suggest that focusing on primary/secondary is itself often more complicated the real types of sourcing questions involved.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A modern edition of a piece of antique literature is imho somewhere between primary and secondary. It's original text is primary, but commentary, footnotes, to some degree translations and additions are secondary. For literal quotes is is often best to use primary sources/original references, but for the analysis of those quotes or hearsay quotes modern (secondary) sources should be used. There is difference between sourcing something that a person literally wrote or sourcing some "factual" description. To go back to the Darwin example on that one, if you want to quote Darwin for some reason, then you should of course use the primary source, i.e. his original writing. But if you want to source a factual description of the theory of evolution (= the current scholarly view/consensus) then you should cite a modern textbook rather than Darwin. The scenario you are describing with Aristotle seems to be one of the cases, where the use of primary sources is usually ok (if not even desired).--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we are all in agreement. Blueboar (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't take this long to determine consensus
If, after 3 weeks of effort, you still haven't been able to decide whether or not there is a consensus, that is pretty conclusive evidence that there isn't one. If a true consensus exists, then it should be obvious to everyone. We don't expect a true consensus and are happy with a "rough consensus" (whatever that means), but even then it shouldn't be this hard to determine. We shouldn't be making major amendments to fundamental policies based on an RFC that is so close that it takes more than 3 weeks for the closers to reach a decision. --Tango (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The delay is because one of the closers is unexpectedly AFK because of real life, Tango.— S Marshall T/C 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Any idea on how long until they're available again? Silver  seren C 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And why didn't the other two notify us? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's Black Kite who is absent, but I was under the impression that they were going to try to find a replacement. Maybe they couldn't.--FormerIP (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It took a lot longer in Belgium Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. And this is more important, so we should have patience. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone could politely ask User:Newyorkbrad for an update (I forget who the other closer was)? Obviously, we all want to stand back and avoid even the appearance of improperly trying to influence or force a decision (and we definitely do not need the drama that would result from appearing to do so).. but it would be nice to have a rough idea of how much longer we will need to wait for a decision.  Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He has been asked. Waiting 203 years would not be unprecedented. Thincat (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I can understand their discussions/ work being in private, but they should otherwise be teslling us what is going on. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Discussions behind closed doors?  I certainly hadn't expected that—this is a wiki, so there's a basic presumption of transparency.  This isn't an Arbcom case, or a matter involving a user, where secrecy is appropriate.  It's a discussion close.  Fraught, complicated, but no reason for any secret squirrel business.  My feeling was that the closers were simply waiting for Black Kite to return from whatever's taken him away, but once they start talking I would expect a discussion along the lines of a crat chat, so that only the closers can participate but everyone can see.  This is how triumvirate closes have tended to work in the past.— S Marshall  T/C 13:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that I am showing my lack of experience with this type of situation. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Email was initially suggested.  Leaky  Caldron  13:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Not really ideal, and a bit disappointing.— S Marshall  T/C 17:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor, away at college, calls home to see how his pet cat Fluffy is doing because he misses him. His brother answers and says, "The cat is dead." The grief stricken editor says. "Oh no! ...... But you could've broken the news more gently. You know how much I cared about Fluffy. You should have said, 'Fluffy got stuck up a tree and we've called the Fire Department to get him down with a ladder.' Then you could update me later with, 'They tried to get Fluffy down but he fell and got hurt and we took him to the veterinary hospital, but they think he might possibly not pull through.' And then you should've called me back the next day with, 'They did all they could for Fluffy but he peacefully passed away in his sleep.' The brother responds,"OK, OK, OK, don't make such a big deal out of it."

The editor then asks, "Anyhow, have you heard anything about the RfC?" The brother responds, "The RfC is stuck up a tree." (A variation on an old joke.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Today is a day that will go down in infamy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The brother's name must have been Schrödinger. A fitting state for this RfC.  Dreadstar  ☥   19:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't vote in the RfC, so I'm willing to step in if the other reviewers would accept my offer to help. I will leave a note on NYBrad's talk page.  Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please do, it would be helpful to get an update of how discussions are proceeding (and I don't mean a prediction of outcome, just whether they are making progress). Thanks, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please do. And thanks for volunteering. Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like we're going to try to hold the discussion on wiki. I will post a link here to the discussion once it gets started, hopefully later today. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. North8000 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I started our deliberation page here. Cla68 (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's encouraging. Thank you for taking this step.— S Marshall  T/C 12:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell's attempt to co-opt Cla68 is not encouraging at all, and neither is Cla68's speedy acceptance. To quote from the "deliberation page", which I have just sent to MfD: "Only User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad, User:Black Kite, and User:Cla68 should edit this page, other editors wishing to comment please use the talk page."
 * This inappropriate behaviour happened after I protested at User talk:Newyorkbrad. Hans Adler 12:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the particulars, but Cla68's efforts seem to be the only signs of life/information on this. One of the larger RFC's ever, and we've been waiting ~a month after comments in the main RFC were closed, getting no info, and now it looks like nothing was happening ?!?!?!? North8000 (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a problem. But if it turns out that in the end consensus, or possibly 'consensus', will be determined by Cla68, HJ Mitchell (who apparently thinks it's a good idea to co-opt someone who, according to Arbcom, "has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, inappropriate use of sources, and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality") and pro forma also Black Kite and Newyorkbrad (who don't seem to have time for anything), then we are likely to get an even bigger problem. Hans Adler 12:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In my imagination of "who would be good for this?' I had 1-2 people in mind that seem perfect...super experienced, super neutral, never-in-controversy and then it occurred to me that the perfect person for this would never touch this with a ten foot pole. :-) North8000 (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess me and HJ Mitchell could conduct this by private communication, but I thought editors would appreciate it being done in the open. Cla68 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * CLA68, it looks like you were sort of involved? North8000 (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone could post a job ad on the admin noticeboard? --FormerIP (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a very good idea. Looking at the link Bob posted below... apparently Cla68 opined on one of the earlier RFCs that predated this one... so I agree that he/she has the appearance of involvement... I must therefore ask him/her to withdraw as a closer. We need someone who has not commented on the issue at all... at any time... someone who not only is not involved but has the appearance of not being involved. (if we can find such) Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Cla68, see for example Oppose #8 of Poll:Misleading opening statement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I got this info by following a link in a 12:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC) message of Hans Adler at User_talk:Newyorkbrad. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the fact that Cla68 doesn't appear to be a current Admin? Leaky  Caldron  15:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He never was. He failed his RfA, apparently for linking from a BLP AfD to an attack site and seeing nothing wrong with that. (I haven't understood the details yet.) More recently he has been agitating on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere for Wikimedia UK to lose its charitable status for failing to enforce BLP properly. Hans Adler 15:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've placed a notice at WP:AN. --FormerIP (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that we need to slow this down and make sure that there is a solid plan / selection for closing where there will be no actual or appearance of issues. I hate to say "slow down" on this already slow process, but such would be much faster than a close which many would say has real issues with the process. North8000 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have to agree. It's fine and dandy asking on IRC (or where ever) but when Joe Blogs turns up and offers help in good faith which is accepted in good faith but turns out to have had involvement / community trust issues it doesn't inspire confidence. Leaky  Caldron  16:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you suggest? We could screen them with psychometric testing... --FormerIP (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your request at AN appears to be attracting suitable bodies. At least they are Admins and easy to confirm that they have not been involved (most unlikely given the remit). Leaky  Caldron  16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * About the process: I don't mind if the closers have discussions off-wiki.  I'd like to get occasional status reports, and I believe that we need a good final statement from them, but if they want to wordsmith it off-wiki, without people hassling them, trying to influence them, or bookmarking diffs for later harassment, then that's fine with me.  I think that an off-wiki discussion might have the significant advantage of letting them make mistakes in an environment that is much easier to say, "You know, I've changed my mind about..."
 * And simply in practical terms, how are you going to prevent them from talking to each other? They could set up a sham on-wiki discussion, and you'd have no idea.
 * And who says that if you comment on a talk page, they'll even read it? If I were them, I probably would ignore any such comments as being intended to bias their reading.  I know that several people feel strongly enough about this that they hope to influence the results, but we need to let it go.  Closing arguments are over and done.  It's in the jury's hands.  Our job is to sit and wait for them to pronounce the verdict, not to keep trying to eavesdrop on the jury room or to remind them of our favorite arguments.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know the protocol, but I tend to think the same as WhatamIdoing regarding the discussion itself. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Status updates would be nice. Even something as short as "We've finished initial reading of all the comments" or "We've begun discussing this amongst ourselves" or "We're getting closer to an agreement on what the RfC means" or "We're still a ways off. Please be patient." Having these kind of statements can be very reassuring that the process is moving forward. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be very good, particularly at this point. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is my conclusion on the RfC. I think it will be interesting to see what the closers determine.  I invite them to use my page as a resource, and as a place to hold their discussions if they choose. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While giving recognition to your efforts, I'm sure you will see why it would be inappropriate to use your particular page. While the template/structure is a good start it now includes your own considered view. That is not an appropriate clean slate from which the closing admins. should begin their public deliberations, if that is how they chose to proceed. Leaky  Caldron  23:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Cla68's summary of those opposing the proposed change omits several key arguments (at least, from my perspective):
 * It's not broken, don't fix it. Despite repeated and repeated calls, nobody could produce a single example of an editor knowingly insisting on including false, but verifiable information in an article.  For such a major change in policy, I would expect supporters to have provided dozens of such examples.
 * Not true. I told of an example of an admin using a source of no recognised authority to insist that a falsehood remained in an article. I didn't list the article because I didn't want to appear to be 'settling a score', but anyone can ask. PRL42 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Proponents of fringe theories frequently abuse Wikipedia to promote their fringe nonsense. I don't know how many times I've seen a Birther insist that Barrack Obama isn't a natural born citizen, or that he's a secret Muslim.  Or a Truther insist that 9/11 was an inside job.   "Verifiability, not truth" is a simple, but important tool for trying to bring sanity to some of Wikipedia's troubled areas.
 * The RfC contained a non-neutral title and a non-neutral explanation of the change. The RfC only contained arguments in favor of the change.  I suspect that if the RfC only contained arguments against the change, the percentage would be different.
 * 65% 62% is not consensus. This is not a democracy and this is not a vote.  And if it were a simple vote, the only situation I'm aware of where a hard number is used on Wikipedia is for RfAs and 65% 62% would fall short.
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * #1 is a valid point, and I will add it. #2 is already included.  #3 is valid and I will add it.  As far as #4, in my opinion when two sides have solid arguments, it comes down to numbers and the fact that the proposed change is an honest attempt at a compromise. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, 65% is not enough to consider a consensus; it's not even a two-thirds majority but a simple majority. I believe the threshhold for deciding a consensus is 75% support. (Speaking as someone who not only has no dog in this fight, but is apathetic about the whole matter. I just have an opinion about when to count noses in an RfC & how to make use of that information.) If you toss that point out but believe the other points are still more convincing, well that's another issue entirely. -- llywrch (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no percentage (short of 100%) that is "consensus". There is no magic line drawn anywhere—not 60%, not 70%, and not 80%.  It's not just a matter of vote counting.  A discussion that is four lousy arguments against one really good one should be decided in favor of the good argument, even though it is the minority position.  (Think about AFDs as an example:  Four "sounds unimportant to me" !votes are worthless in the face of of a single "Here's 10 top-quality independent sources specifically on this subject" !vote.)  We do occasionally have to make decisions that are basically according to majority votes (e.g., if a decision absolutely must be made and the arguments are equally strong on both sides), but in that extremely rare (and hopefully temporary in all cases, and hopefully irrelevant in this particular case) case, the 65% should normally be valued over the 35%.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not like that with this RfC, because there are not really any objective standards for judging what the good and bad arguments are (setting aside any that were just plain stupid). So I think it's about whether the result of the RfC, which can't be in doubt, is valid or not. --FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Other considerations are the total number of the respondents and how well the respondents understood the proposal.
 * 1) For example, a result of 62% support, 34% oppose, 4% neutral has more significance for a total of 400 respondents than for 14 respondents.
 * 2) Also, one could consider whether the support respondents understood the proposal better or worse than the oppose respondents.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So far we've here been going by:
 * "How about we agree to write zero about the RFC, and zero about anything related to the RFC, and zero about the text that is the subject of the RFC until the current closing process is completed? People who do otherwise force other people to do otherwise.  Time to chill out."

A Quest For Knowledge, by (probably inadvertently) "working the room" with your assertions, you are (perhaps inadvertently) pulling us "off the cliff" from following this. I am tempted to provide responses supporting that several of those points are inaccurately stated or not correct, but there's still hope for not taking that tumble so I won't.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free, you guys, to use that page's talk page in my userspace to debate the issue further. I'm hoping that the summary I drafted will help expedite the closing admins' decision. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, please, anyone who wishes to continue re-treading the RfC while it being decided, go to Cla86's talkpage and stay there. --FormerIP (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would really like to hear others' opinions on whether my rationale for the decision I made was sound or not. I put several hours into reading every, single support and oppose vote.  Again, however, please say so over there and not here. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope, and fully expect, that your summary will not expedite their decision. I expect them to read all of the relevant and extensive material, including your summary and opinion, to reach their own conclusion in whatever time it takes. Your contribution is no more or less weighted than any other of the 400 opinions expressed over a 6 week period. It is obviously not acceptable to use your page to host their discussion since it contains your personal assessment. They will require a clean slate to avoid accusations of being swayed by you (which they will not be because they all know what they are doing). The closing Admin. has offered you some good advice,   Leaky  Caldron  00:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. Based on my experience, it takes about three or four hours to read through all the support and oppose votes, while keeping a careful tabulation of the key arguments for each side.  Once that is done, I don't think the decision is that difficult.  The three admins who have volunteered should be able to give us a decision fairly quickly.  If I can do it, they can, and it really should have been done already. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There was some talk previously that the losing side would appeal the result to Arbcom. Why not go to Arbcom directly to resolve this RfC? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not within ArbCom's remit to decide policy. They can only rule on conduct issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I realized that the number I used above (65% in favor) is incorrect. It's actually 62%.  I have corrected the numbers in my previous post.  Sorry for any confusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 276 for, 149 against. North8000 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011
 * 276 support, 149 oppose, 19 neutral. 276 + 149 + 19 = 444.  276/444 = 62%.  Again, sorry for any confusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a side comment - "neutral" votes aren't counted in the total, because otherwise they are no different than "oppose" votes. Essentially "neutral" votes are abstentions accompanied by explanations. This is standard in RFA at least. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * CBM's point is reasonable and that is one reason why it is a misrepresentation when only one side's percentage is given. Another reason it is a misrepresentation to give only the percentage of one side's votes is because it hides the size of one side relative to the size of the other. Reporting percentage as support, oppose, neutral is a more objective representation. For example: 62% support, 34% oppose, 4% neutral.   --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A new set of closing admins?
Looking at the WP:AN discussion... I see several uninvolved admins who say they would be willing to review and work on closing... but I don't see anyone who has made a firm commitment to do so. Are we sure that we have a new triumvirate (or what ever), or are we just hoping that we do? The RfC really does need resolution if we are to move forward productively. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I put something about that there and also an attempt to kickstart clarifying who is doing / will be doing the close. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the lengthy and protracted discussion and the lack of clear consensus, I'm troubled by any small group of editors being tasked with, in effect, determining if there is to be a tweaking of significant policy language. I have no opinion on the underlying question. My feeling is that it should be closed with the notation of no clear consensus. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "No consensus" means "no consensus either way", not "no consensus to change". If there is no consensus, we would be equally justified in saying that there is no clear consensus to retain the existing policy language.  (See Consensus.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been avoiding thinking or writing about the "what if's" while waiting....they make my head spin. Especially in the the context that this is a compromise proposal seeking to resolve the matter. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally think both sides have a reasonable point, though I lean in the direction of the view that "not truth" is unnecessary language that gives the impression that we don't care if things in Wikipedia are true. Perhaps the solution is to go back to the drawing board and find a solution that will get a clear consensus. In other words, it is not an "either or" proposition, and I don't like the idea of power to decide policy being placed in the hands of a small group of people. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...this is a compromise proposal...
 * But you assume facts not in evidence. It is a "compromise" for those who believe there is a "matter" to resolve. A not insignificant number of respondees believe that assertion to be balderdash. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we re-enacting this debate?— S Marshall T/C 18:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's Groundhog Day! --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh goody! Soon we'll get to the bit where the debate gets closed and then an involved user reverts the closer.  I'd like to see an action replay of that.— S Marshall  T/C 20:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So if we can't find uninvolved editors willing I propose the closing SysOps editors to be SlimVirgin, SarekofVulcan and Blueboar? Crazynast 21:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe Bill Murray? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Blueboar and Sarek would both make good closers if they weren't already involved here. Blueboar crossed the aisle to propose a compromise, and, as Jimbo said, Sarek did a good close. North8000 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * hmmm, maybe I should have linked that, take a look at Tongue-in-cheek if you're not already familiar. Crazynast 22:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tongue in cheek for you, but not for me. I agree with Jimbo, Sarek had a good close. Furthermore, the personal attacks on Sarek by some on the losing side after he gave his decision, not before mind you, won't change the fact that his close was reasonable.   --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The tongue in cheek was not in regards to weather Sarek had a good close, but more of a statement of three users who would be least likely to be regarded by the community at large as impartial. Crazynast 23:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that when someone closes an RfC, they are not making a judgement on whether or not the proposal is an improvement. They are making a judgement on whether or not the editors' comments as a whole, indicate that the proposal should be passed. It doesn't appear that Sarek has voted support or oppose in the RfC like the 400 editors who participated, so I wouldn't say that he is in the same category of the least impartial as  the two leaders of both sides are.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, if we are looking at the same discussion, I see commitments by RegentsPark and Worm That Turned to join HJ Mitchell as the "closing team." "Firm commitment" is a matter of interpretation, but I regard "sounds good" (which is what one of them said) as a commitment, at least. Neutron (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that asking them for a clear answer on on this would be good. North8000 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did ask them to make an appearance here, which I meant to be a (in)formal last step in the recruitment process. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

North8000: Ummm...excuse me? Did you forget that the tag on policy page that says this is under discussion? You insisted that we leave the 'under discussion' tag up, but now you complain when people discuss it. Can you please make up your mind? It's either under discussion or it's not under discussion. Which is it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My take is that discussion is not actually banned. However, countless pixels have been spilled over all this and, by now, editors that are continuing to debate it are just repeating arguments that everyone else here is already aware of. If someone has a flash of inspiration and wakes during the night sweating, then they should feel free to post their revelation. But, in other cases, I think an understanding that we should respect each other's mental health by not continuing to drone on and on, rebroadcasting opinions which are already well-documented, is a good thing. --FormerIP (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A Quest For Knowledge, you misrepresented me on both counts. Regarding the tag,  as I had said a couple of times, my context is feeling that "under discussion" is a graceful way of saying "in dispute". Regarding further discussion on the topic of the RFC, what I said was only:
 * "So far we've here been going by: "How about we agree to write zero about the RFC, and zero about anything related to the RFC, and zero about the text that is the subject of the RFC until the current closing process is completed? People who do otherwise force other people to do otherwise. Time to chill out.""
 * Nothing more, nothing less. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I continue to take a long term view of this, and because I do, I think the tag remains appropriate. The tagged sentence is indeed still "under discussion"... even though at this specific moment in time, that discussion is taking place between a panel of admins, and happens to be taking place somewhere other than this exact talk page.  The point being... while it is not being discussed here... the sentence is being discussed never the less.  And, once the panel of admins are done with their discussion, and they give us some guidance as to how to move forward, there will be continued discussions on this page.  Discussion may be paused... but it has not ended.  There is no need to remove the tag that informs readers of this fact.  Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "And, once the panel of admins are done with their discussion, and they give us some guidance as to how to move forward, there will be continued discussions on this page." — Could you explain more specifically what you mean by that? It seems like you are suggesting that the resolution of the RfC by the admins would not in effect resolve anything and the discussion would be endless, and the tag would remain. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Once the close has been made, then if the result is in favour, we'll need to adapt this and other policies to use the new wording more concisely and elegantly. If the result is against, then I suppose we'll work on a different compromise and seek consensus for that.  Either way, the discussion won't have finished.— S Marshall  T/C 16:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) I mean that the admins might decide that while the compromise I proposed in the RFC does have a consensus, that the consensus is week. They could decide that my proposal should be implemented... but only as a first step in achieving language that has even greater consensus - that it should be considered as heading us in the right direction... a starting point not a final product.
 * On the other hand, they could decide that my attempt at compromise does not have a consensus, and should not be implemented. In which case, the underlying concerns that I was attempting to resolve will need to be addressed in some other way.  We all go back to square one and try to craft a different compromise... one that will gain consensus.
 * Or... they could come back with something else entirely... in which case we will have to discuss how to move forward from whatever they decide. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are points here that I could comment on, but I think that it's better to first get a decision from the closing admins. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Under discussion?
The "underdiscussion" tag at the end of the first sentence links to a discussion that has now been archived. Should the tag not be removed until a new discussion begins on this talk page? Scolaire (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that so far everyone has been going by:
 * "How about we agree to write zero about the RFC, and zero about anything related to the RFC, and zero about the text that is the subject of the RFC until the current closing process is completed? People who do otherwise force other people to do otherwise. Time to chill out."
 * North8000 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So let's remove the tag! Scolaire (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove the tag... The lede is still "under discussion" (and probably will be for some time). At the moment, the discussion happens to be taking place off to the side... among a triumvirate of uninvolved admins, who have volunteered examine and close the recent RfC.  The rest of us are merely waiting until they reach a decision. Their decision will determine what direction we will take as we move forward with continued discussions.  In other words... we ain't done discussin' it yet. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why invite people into a discussion that they can't join? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a temporary problem caused by the fact that it seems to have taken the closers three weeks to read the discussion. (I don't know whether I'm impressed or horrified that they've read it so thoroughly.)  Since removing "under discussion" would suggest that the current version enjoys consensus support, it's clearly inappropriate to do so.— S Marshall  T/C 15:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Whereas leaving it creates the impression that we're discussing it, whereas in fact we're being asked not to discuss it. What exactly is the harm in the unwary reader thinking the sentence is not controversial, when the sentence has been there for, what, ten years? Scolaire (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Because right now (at this moment in time), the sentence is the subject of controversy and discussion. The fact that we are not discussing it here on this page, right now, does not mean discussion isn't taking place. The tag tells editors that there is discussion ongoing, which there is... even if (at this exact moment in time) that discussion is temporarily occurring elsewhere.  As soon as the triumvirate gives us their decision on the RfC the discussion here will pick up again and continue.  Take a longer term view of this... If we removed the tag now, we would just have to add it back in a few days (whenever the triumvirate's decision is handed down). Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So then just add it back when discussion resumes. That will take - what? - 2 seconds?  Compare and contrast that time with the time this discussion is wasting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a controversial move would definitely fall under the above and take this page off the cliff again. As per others above, please do not modify. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What's controversial? Nobody can join their discussion.  Why do you want to invite someone to discussion which they cannot partipate in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I think that you know, that is a graceful way of saying "in dispute" North8000 (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No, actually, I didn't think of it that way. If that's what this is about, fine.  But it's still stupid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And one of the closers said that comments to the RFC can still be made. It is likely, since it has been archived, that the three of them will be the only ones ever to see such comments; but they may be the only ones who need to.


 * The present armistice is between those of us who have discussed it to exhaustion; fresh blood is always welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems then the discussion tag should link to the archive of the RfC and not to this page. The whole page is alway under discussion here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Except the archive page says to not edit its contents:

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Alanscottwalker. If input is allowed in the discussion in the archive, then the "underdiscussion" tag should link to the discussion in the archive. And if input is allowed in the archive, the archive page header should be ignored per IAR. Having a tag with a link that leads nowhere is wrong.  Scolaire (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How are you going to tell editors that they should ignore all rules and edit the archives anyway? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Those who want to, will. Those who don't want to, won't. At least the link will have led them to the right place (BTW if you link to the section they won't see the header anyway). Scolaire (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What about those who don't know? Also, how will editors know that the Committe of 3 are still reading that discussion?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Boy, you are on a quest for knowledge, aren't you? The answer to all those questions is: it doesn't matter! If there is a pointer to a discussion, then it should point to a discussion. If it doesn't point to a discussion, it shouldn't be there. What individual editors know about what they are theoretically allowed to do, or about who else is reading a page besides them, has nothing to do with it. Scolaire (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone who knows how to, please undo the archiving. Roger (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The way you do it is to cut and paste the archived section back to here, and then add the template dnau to the top of the section you don't want archived. But wouldn't it be better to paste it to a separate subpage if we don't want it archived?— S Marshall  T/C 19:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it to mean that they would be looking at the comments on this page. 20:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Better to make a subpage and keep all the info together. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  23:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Live hostage dramas are always so exciting to watch! Dreadstar ☥   18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ask the question again
Okay, so now somebody has added the section to the talk page. Can we now please change the tag in the article to, so that the "discussion" link actually links to a discussion (of sorts), instead of a non-existant section? Scolaire (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No objection... so DONE... However, once we have a decision as to the closure of the RfC, the discussion on this page will continue (The decision will tell us what direction to take those continuing discussions, but will not end them)... so, we will eventually need to re-re-direct the "under discussion" tag so to point to that continuing discussion (when it happens). Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Where's the discussion? Something is referred to as "the following lengthy discussion" in the beginning of the talk page, yet the text below begins with "While we're waiting" and seems to be some kind of leisurely chat. I catch glimpses of proposals somewhere in the heap of comments below, but I don't understand where the actual discussion started, who started it and what his argument was. Anyway, if the idea is to remove the "not truth" part because it's a pretext for stupid or uninformed people (maybe even EU ministers? - I didn't read the article) to accuse Wikipedians of being liars and enemies of the truth, then I think it's a bad idea. "Not truth" has been part of the policy formulation for many years, there are countless references to it in discussions, and it captures very well the key thing about Wikipedia that most new editors (and some old ones) don't understand. The way it's formulated now is perfectly reasonable. Even the fact that there is an "under discussion" tag is an embarrassment to the project, which should have a clear consensus on its core principles at this point. It's like rewriting the key articles of the US constitution. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that "under discussion" is also a graceful way of saying "in dispute" North8000 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So what? Where's the dispute then? Who's disputing it? Why is he disputing it? Does any Wikipedia editor have the right to "gracefully" maintain some kind of "in dispute" tag on anything he dislikes, and that for an indefinite period of time, without discussing it, and that on longstanding core Wikipedia policy? (Hint - that's a rhetorical question. When you have failed to manage to gather consensus for a change, you don't get to tag the old version as "semi-valid" for all time instead). Hey, if somebody doesn't like "verifiability, not truth", NOR, NPA, etc., Citizendium is right next door. A project whose very basic principles are constantly in question is doomed.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This should address the situation:
 * "...not whether editors think it is true. undefined"
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha! There's a bit of an asymmetry though - at least the second tag leads to a section that really clearly contains what it refers to, whereas the first tag doesn't even do that. If somebody takes a look at this present section, they'll understand immediately who's objecting to what and the reason why they're doing it. Looking at that other section, I don't see any discussion of "whether editors think it is true". There's apparently a lot of stuff about reliable sources, but I don't see any necessary connection with "verifiability, not truth".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Try looking at the above tags as calming and soothing, like a baby whale and its mother swimming calmly and gracefully underwater......calming and soothing......soothing and calming......you're feeling your eyelids becoming a little heavy....... a little heavier .......calming and soothing......a little heavier.....soothing and calming..... a little heavier ......calming and soothing.....................................--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Cut the trolling. The pro-change people, to whom you apparently belong, are basically misusing a tag, of which the normal purpose is to invite people to a discussion, in order to do something that was never supposed to be done at all, namely to mark something they dislike as being "in dispute". Until you've gained the consensus to change something, you can't just annul it provisionally - by means of tags or otherwise. Also, the misleading wordings about "following lengthy discussion" should be changed, because it is counterintuitive that it applies to an archived page - I didn't realize that before now, and of course, none of the responders here was sufficiently helpful to point it out to me either.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A general, albeit belated, comment on the proposal - Blueboar apparently meant well, but the ultimate result is a major, possibly disastrous concession to the pro-OR current among Wikipedians which has long been unhappy about WP:V anyway. Even reading many of the comments show that many of the supporters of the change are pretty overtly in favour of OR to start with. Removing the succinct "not truth" and adding a vague note that verifiability is not guarantee of inclusion - without explicitly excluding considerations of "truth" preventing inclusion - borders on catastrophe. It allows the interpretation that we are allowed, and indeed supposed, to exclude a statement supported by a reliable source because we "know" it to be false. No. We can judge about the reliability of sources, or the relevance of the statement, but not about the veracity of specific claims in the sources. Negative OR is still OR. Once you allow negative OR, positive OR is the next logical step (and both had been rampant on Wikipedia even before this proposal to legalize them). The first result will be that whenever a sourced claim about, say, the origin of man from primates is added, people of dubious biological qualifications will start debating the merits of the claim itself, and will delete it if they disagree with it. The extremely wishy-washy note on "truth and untruth", separated at a safe distance from the core description of the policy in the lede, will not prevent that. I'm referring to "If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a neutral point of view (and especially the sub-concept of due weight)." Sure, I can make a few passing references to NPOV and due weight, while also using my own excellent knowledge of the anatomy of hominid ankles to disprove, say Eudald Carbonell's foolish assertions, which somebody else has included. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I overdid it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Accepted. Best, --91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * When there's a phrase in a policy that a clear majority of editors have a problem with, it's right that the policy should contain some indication of the nature and extent of the dispute. Otherwise there's a risk that inexperienced editors might be fooled into believing that the policy in its current form is accepted by, or acceptable to, the community, when it clearly is not.— S Marshall  T/C 22:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC closure
I'm guessing either everyone's stopped caring or no-one puts archived pages on their watchlist, but I thought it would worth be mentioning that the RfC has been closed. Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53. --FormerIP (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. (I was one of those who didn't watchlist the archive.) And thanks to the three people who had the thankless task of making the decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrmph. -- J N  466  00:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm smiling. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record: I never said that you are stupid. Hans Adler 01:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My sentiments preciselym Jayen466. A disappointing outcome, after over a year of effort: Wikipedia's consensus rules lead to the triumph of the 33% over the 62%. A victory for filibustering, and a victory for the tactic of involved users overturning a good faith close. A defeat for compromise, and a victory for obstructiveness. I did predict it. To my amusement, the "under discussion" tag is being removed, which has the unintended effect of facilitating the pretence that VNT enjoys consensus support; please could another user deal with Dreadstar because I don't presently have the patience. Back to the drawing board, I suppose, in search of a form of words that will achieve consensus. I will have a less bitter post mortem to post tomorrow.— S Marshall T/C 01:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Consensus democracy is difficult... Mlm42 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My advice to everyone (which admittedly, counts for nada) is to shrug it off, work on other things for a while, and let some time pass before trying this again. And please let's not edit war over the "discussion" tag. The RfC is over, and that discussion is over, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We supposedly cannot make a minor adjustment to policy in a huge RfC with 60% support? The only good news is that this may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. There are similar problems with ossification in all our policies. Probably time for a complete rewrite of everything from scratch. Hans Adler 01:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my feeling too. The result would seem to suggest that our current processes don't allow policy to be changed unless the proposed change is uncontroversial. I don't immediately know what the answer is, though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently, a significant portion of the community did not consider it to be a minor change. Truly minor changes are made to policies and guidelines every month without controversy.   Will Beback    talk    01:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, WP:NOT is our most ignored policy. Do we really have to call an RfC a "poll" and get it rubber stamped by Arbcom before >60% support are enough to get a change? Setting up something like WP:DATEPOLL seems to be the next step now, and I just don't see how the result can be substantially different or how anyone profits from the continued blocking of progress. It's not as if the change proposed in this RfC would have been immune to further editing. Yet some [self-censored] opposed it because they felt it didn't go far enough! Hans Adler 01:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Many people want progress, but they don't agree on what that means. Others don't want to mess up something that works. In the end, Wikipedia does not exist to create great policies, we're just here to create a great encyclopedia. Policies are just aids to that effort, so let's not get too hung up on them.   Will Beback    talk    01:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Our policies are aids to our efforts. The often misleading, confusing and contradictory ways in which our policies are laid out are obstructive to our efforts. I agree about not getting hung up, though. --FormerIP (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If we had it all to do over again no one would make Wikipedia the same way again. The policies have been misleading, confusing and contradictory since the beginning. Citizendium, now there's a nice logical set of policies! If only we were more like them...   Will Beback    talk    04:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence
Somewhere in the archives ... SlimVirgin and I discussed the following wording for the lead sentence:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough for it to be true.

For reference, the present wording is

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.

SlimVirgin said she would be fine with that change (07:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)). Any objections? -- J N  466  00:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm afraid that I object to that.— S Marshall T/C 01:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strongest possible objection ever!!!!! From now on I will object on principle to every change to every policy, guideline, essay or help page. Changing anything about them is too dangerous. Hans Adler 01:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Object, because "verifiability" and "not truth" contradict each other, and therefore the phrase makes no sense. If it is going to be in the intro, it needs to be put into context as Blueboar's proposal did, lower down in the policy.  Though perhaps not as far down... which could be the basis of a new compromise.  Maybe in the second paragraph.  I also have to say, this is quite a system we have here, we take a vote -- and it really was a vote -- and 65 percent was not enough to make the decision, but 35 percent was enough to make the decision.  I know "majority rules" is a quaint old notion unworthy of the modern-day 21st Century Wiki-culture (or whatever), but perhaps it deserves another look, at least where the wording of a policy is concerned.  It has worked in a lot of places for a pretty long time.  Neutron (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it pains me to say this, but for the moment it looks like we are stuck with VNT in the lead sentence, following the RfC closure. At least this wording would mitigate the problem of people using the lead para to wikilawyer that verifiable, but verifiably false, information has to remain in articles. -- J  N  466  02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that change, but I don't really care. Three shorter sentences rather than one long one might be more readable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Adding discussion of "truth" to this policy does not clarify it.  The fact that Dewey defeated Truman is 100% WP:V verifiable, within the spirit of the policy.  IMO, this proposal is a misunderstanding of the relationshps of our content policy.  Sorry, Unscintillating (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

New RFC
Context: This is the long overdue and so-far-skipped RFC to ADD "not truth" to the lead to have the first sentence read "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". There has been no RFC of any substance on this addition, and so this is the long-overdue RFC to see if there is a consensus for the addition of "not truth" to the first sentence.

The RFC is: For the addition of "not truth" the first sentence to have the first sentence read: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" North8000 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * Support keeping "not truth"; not "inserting it". It's already there and has been for years. This is what this has always been about, and the complacency displayed when some bullshit attempt to get those two words removed at any cost is not the way to go about it. Doc   talk  21:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose Putting in "not truth" = Bad idea. An unnecessary and problematic diversion added to the core statement (and what the rest of the policy says) which is that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Gives the completely inappropriate impression that we don't care about accuracy when this is actually the most important thing we are after. Besides, I object to any and all contentious changes to policy even if they have strong support, because it's just too dangerous to change anything. Maybe unanimously, but I am not sure. Anyway, in this case it's too late as someone else has already opposed. Hans Adler 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - misleading. We ''are' striving for some sort of accuracy with our editing here, and the "not truth" meme (while sounding catchy in trying to promote verification of sources) is counterintuitive in this. It's just wrong. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "not truth" is strictly speaking not needed but potentially misleading or confusing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Kmhkmh. It's not needed and creates unnecessary confusion. -- J N  466  02:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it's not needed per most comments above. It also ends up defining "truth" on Wikipedia as mere opinion. So, new people here who after some thinking/debate understand what the intended meaning of the first sentence is, will think that this is the standard meaning of truth here on Wikipedia, but that's not the case. Count Iblis (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For all the various reasons discussed before, and likely to be discussed again and again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * As long as WP uses an anonymous contributor model, I don't see how we have anything other than some version of VNT. Since we can't hold contributors/editors accountable for their opinions on what constitutes truth, all we have left is to hold the sources accountable.  That being said, as I edit Pacific War articles, I do sometimes unilaterally decide what is true when two sources contradict, which happens more often than you might think in a subject which really isn't that controversial.  Sometimes I explain the contradictory information in a footnote, but sometimes I don't.  Now, imagine what takes place in a controversial article, such as one with very polarized political positions.  So, I can sympathize with the desire to concentrate more on what we know.  Again, however, as long as we choose to remain anonymous, we aren't in any position to absolutely decide what is true or not. Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Just a suggestion, if you're really serious about this RfC, then you need to make sure the RfC proposal explanation wording is complete, clear, and neutral. I suggest passing the wording by a few editors before posting it.  This isn't something you want to throw up here off-the-cuff. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point.   Will Beback    talk    01:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the RFC is very simple and neutral.  It does provide the history context.   Good point that they should be separated; I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose this faulty RFC, it's an obvious attempt to game the system with an end-run around the just-closed RFC results that attempted but failed to remove the phrase. The phrase has already been added and has enjoyed Consensus for many years.  This is an abuse of the system.  Dreadstar  ☥   01:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the issue. The policy already says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - what change is being proposed?   Will Beback    talk    01:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That "not truth" wording has so far been in there with no RFC or other significant process. It is time to see if there is a consensus for that "not truth" insertion which is currently sitting in there. North8000 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been there for years. There's obviously been a consensus for it. There is certainly not a consensus to delete it, which seems to be the proposal here. I agree with Dreadstar that this RfC seems like an end-run around an RfC which had widespread involvement. Unless this RFC gets as much attention as the just-closed one it would not be valid.   Will Beback    talk    01:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the RFC is for the ADDITION of "not truth".  Well somebody reverted the early Nov close saying that hundreds of responses, advertisement in all of the major policy pages plus centralized discussion, and closing with 1 admin vs. 3 was "insufficient process" for such a change.  There should be no double standard. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone can preemptively invalidate this RfC. I do think, however, the poster needs to make sure the wording is the best it can be before posting it, as it is a very serious question.  I had to reread it a couple of times to make sure I understood what it was asking. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What would happen to the policy if this RfC succeeds?   Will Beback    talk    02:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Will Beback - I am sure the vast majority of editors over the past five years have not thought much about the page at all, I know I virtually never did. Who knows what the consensus really is, apart from the just over 1/3rd who opposed the change - so who supports it? To answer the edit-conflicted next item, nothing, it stays as is and proper consensus for its inclusion is shown. as it is, the current draft of a page always has a big advantage in most of these arguments that obviously people are't happy with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you're wrong. The idea that active editors haven't read the first line of one of the main policies in five years would be a very poor reflection on this community.   Will Beback    talk    02:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For certain, it'll represent a fundamental change to the way WP:CON works. If your RFC fails to get something changed or removed because it resulted in no-consensus, then all you have to do is turn your RFC around backwards, and claim there’s no consensus for its existence either, and remove it anyway.  No content will be safe when there's a no-consensus result.  Dreadstar  ☥   02:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, I don't think that any one person can answer all of the "what if's; I think we should see if there is a consensus for the addition of "not truth" and then go from there. North8000 (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Answering Dreadstar, that would only be the case where whatever version is sitting in there got there with no process or insufficient process. North8000 (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's had due process, the phrase's existence here for many years is proof of that. Dreadstar  ☥   02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody reverted the early Nov close saying that hundreds of responses, advertisement in all of the major policy pages plus centralized discussion, and closing with 1 admin vs. 3 was "insufficient process" for such a change.
 * Who actually added it in the first place (and when)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems "verifiability, not truth" was first added here. However, the context that was present then to explain what it means has since disappeared. The wording came from WP:NOR, where it was first inserted here. And that came from a draft where it was first inserted here. -- J N  466  05:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * JN466, That's a very good point re context. Unfortunately, very few here will recognize that, nor recognize an implication, viz. a writer losing a sense of what is needed for explanation as the writer becomes more familiar with an idea. Anyhow, thanks for sharing those diffs.--Bob K31416 (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Calisper, I didn't investigate it myself, but from the descriptions of those who did, it sounds like it crept in by a series of small steps, some included changing the original meaning that it first got in by by moving it and removing the context. North8000 (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think someone needs to take this to AN/I, it's the same RFC that just closed. I'd do it, but I don't have the time right now.  Dreadstar  ☥   02:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." The "Verifiability, not truth" wording has extremely strong longstanding consensus from every editor who didn't change it.  I believe this RfC is disruptive.  I didn't care if the phrase was changed, but piling on this RfC just because you don't like the outcome of the other is disruption.   Be— —Critical  02:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Not truth" has been immensely disputed.  Including for the last the last 12 month  discussion here. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So not only did it have consensus before such discussion started, in spite of best efforts by a number of editors, there was no consensus for removal. That's called strong consensus.   Be— —Critical  02:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 279:149 for one specific way of removing it is hardly consistent with strong consensus for not removing it. Hans Adler 22:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You can't ignore implied consensus. The policy has been relatively stable with this phrase in place....which implies the community has supported the policy as written. This RfC sets a very dangerous precedent for all of our policies and articles As always the problem is those who misuse the policy. Changing the policy can't change  editors who misuse policies. Simplicity is memorable and the phrase we have in place is simple. Trying to get rid of two words to fix a problem that is pervasive across Wikipedia, is a band aid solution.


 * There was a RfC on the disputed phrase after the nine months of discussion and the result was no consensus. Prior to that, the policy was stable for how long?


 * I see good editors facing off against good editors on this. What is the real issue, the underlying issue. Let's tackle the underlying issues.(olive (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC))
 * I think that this RFC is the first step in that process in this complex environment. North8000 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly. This RfC sets a precedent. Any content put in place with out an RfC can now be as judged unstable, which is ludicrous. You think this is complex .Wait until editors with agendas start manipulating this little change in how we deal with our articles and policies.(olive (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC))


 * BeCritical, you just mixed a bunch of things together that would take a book to respond to.   :-).   I was responding to your previous comment which said "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". I was in essence saying that even if that were true, it would not be applicable to "not truth" because it as been both very controversial and very disputed. North8000 (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support closure of this RfC as malformed and misleading. This RfC is not in fact about the "addition of 'not truth' the first sentence to have the first sentence", as that wording is already there. This RfC therefore would appear to be about the removal of this wording. For the record, I am opposed to its removal. What is 'the truth' is a very ropey philosophical issue (as well as all to frequently the product of idiosyncratic revelation) well beyond the purview of a mere collaborative encyclopaedia. The best that such an encyclopaedia can aspire to is a verifiable collection of the published, and thus intersubjective, facts and expert opinions. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support closure of this RfC as malformed The question is inappropriately phrased, as the current wording has been in place for years, showing consensus. Let's close this and stop wasting people's time. LK (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support closure, per my comment above: the phrase has longstanding strong consensus.  Be— —Critical  04:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support closure This RfC would not result in any change and appears to be a pointless bit of gaming. I understand that some editors are frustrated that their policy proposal was not accepted. However this RfC will not bring the community any closer to a resolution.   Will Beback    talk    04:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support closure. The primary means of determining consensus is not discussion, it is making a change and see if it sticks. If VnT was fairly consistent for several years, then ipso facto it had consensus then (i.e., dissent was evidently insignificant, and so it remains the default until such time as compromises have been engineered to the point where consensus is renewed). This second RFC is a blatant attempt to alter proceedure to suit one POV, and the effort would be better spent analysing the ratios of different arguments among the previously requested comments as guidance from which to evolve a more widely preferrable version. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Close. POINTY, IDHT, a little bit of forum shopping. Understandably the initiator of this RfC ought to be given a cream and jam scone and a big pot of hot milky tea—this appears to be a stress reaction, and not normal conduct.  Everyone ought to be given a scone and tea given the stress of the RfC that finally was closed today. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close - This obviously POINTY attempted end run around the other RfC by North8000 seems to me to be disruptive. Novaseminary (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment And for what it is worth, it looks like the "not truth" text was added in August 2005 with this edit and was actually pulled from WP:NOR. Editing over the next few months actually increased the importance of the statement indicating that the concious consensus was to include it. Novaseminary (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed JN466 beat me to this point noting it above  and noted  the original language in NOR was added in  December 2004. Novaseminary (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's interesting to see though how it's morphed since then. When it was introduced, the meaning was clearly explained: it's not "enough" for something to be true, someone needs to have written about it, too. That's what the whole long story about Stephen Hawking was about. You know it's true, because you spoke to him in a pub, but you still can't add it, because no one's published it yet. Today, we're no longer saying "it's not enough for it to be true" (which is what I am advocating returning to, in the section above). Today, we're saying "not whether editors think it is true." Do you spot the difference? The way we are saying it now is two-edged. It's no longer just about excluding what an editor knows to be true, but can't prove with a reliable published source, it's now about the duty to include something that we believe to be untrue, just because it's verifably published—because whether editors think it's true or false does not matter. It never had that meaning when originally introduced. If we went back to "it's not enough to be true", the whole ambiguity would be removed. -- J N  466  08:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose closure There is an neverending mostly repetitive discussion of this formulation and apparently the dispute cannot be resolved this way. So at some point a larger feedback/straw poll and and ultimate (majority) decision by the community is needed here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment But if policy settled for years (with consensus appearing to favor more rather than less prominence) needs to pass an RfC now, don't we need a straw poll on everything? Should we lock every policy and hold one large RfC asking whether any of the policies have consensus? And how do you get around the fact that the issue was addressed in the other RfC? What is the default if there is no consensus, let alone consensus to change? It has to be what has been the longest practice or there is anarchy. Novaseminary (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see it settled for years but only debated for years. Nobody suggested we need a straw poll of RFC on everything, but there cases where they are a appropriate and even needed to reach a conclusion - imho we have such a case here. The old RFC seemed hopelessly convoluted without any conclusive result so far, hence I support new RFC with a clear ans simple question/option. I agree that we should avoid anarchy, however that is no excuse for keeping controversial parts of policies, for which arguably no real consensus existed. Many policy variations were introduced and managed by a very few people and the notion that we might keep the controversial ones among them possible due to a small number simply talking everyone else to death is not an acceptable approach in my book. The "not truth" addition is controversial for years and causing constant irritation and in such case imho it should be sanctioned by the community at large and if it turns out that it is not only controversial but a clear majority of the community opposes it, then it needs to go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Rethink. This is the wrong RFC to have at this point.  The right RFC for us to have in the circumstances is the meta-level one: in what circumstances if any should there be a first-mover advantage in a dispute?— S Marshall  T/C 08:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close - The timing of this really looks like a reactionary, toys out of the pram response to the non-consensus decision to leave the policy as it stands. This, if allowed to sit here indef., will generate more heat than light. It is not an astute way to seek community agreement to modify the long standing policy. It is a highly divisive and disappointing approach. The closer's have suggested a way forward and the community should consider their advice. Leaky  Caldron  11:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous "closure" question  Closure would need to follow the results of the RFC (which so far is a determination that there is not consensus for the addition of "not truth".)  But more input before that would of course be better.  The RFC does not include any action item.   The current system has been misused to first say that (per reversion of the first closure) saying that RFC with hundreds of responses, advertisement in all of the major policy pages plus centralized discussion, and closing with 1 admin vs. 3 was "insufficient process" for such a change, and that a small minority can block any change. This leaves a mess in place. With that mess in place, and that "double standard" being promoted, a first step in the tough road (created by what has been happening) is to determine if the addition of "not truth" has a consensus via some process approaching the same standards.       The large recently completed RFC was for a particular set of changes.  As a sidebar, this new RFC is neither the conjugate of the previous one (it simply asks if there is support for the addition of "not truth" to the first sentence.) nor does it specify any action item.  So no individual can say what would happen next, but my thought that if it were to determine that there is no consensus for the addition, then that result would just provide some balance in the context of the process that have been utilized to that we could actually move forward in a discussion to determine the wording. I.E. one small (but necessary given the process) step in the process of resolving this.  North8000 (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that this is not spur of the moment, I began discussion of this particular RFC HERE over a month ago. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Suggestions were made in the closer's sub-pages and we are invited to look at those in the closer's summary below. Also, HJ suggests looking at this issue afresh in a few months - a good idea, but not now. That you started this distraction a month ago was preemtive - and I cannot understand your motivation, other than an all consuming, almost obsessive wish to change the policy using whatever device, mechanism or process you can think of. Surely 1300+ posts is enough? I am not questioning that your best intentions are for the wider project, but you need to know when you should stop and rethink your tactics. Please.  Leaky  Caldron  12:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you really want to know what makes me tick, when the process is good but I don't like the result, I'm fine with it. Such has not been the case here, starting with the reversion of the close. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The phrase "not truth" has been discussed several times on the policy talk page. It's removal from the policy was discussed here, with 4 people discussing - 3 in favour of reinstating it. The nature of truth was discussed here and here. Linked, ongoing discussions on the issue  here, here, here, with a subpage - Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/truth, and more discussions here, here, here, here, here, here, etc, etc. The term has been questioned (mostly by one now blocked user), and there has been support for it. It didn't just appear and wasn't noticed until 12 months ago. People have had problems with it, but the consensus has been to keep it. I think what the talkpage archives and the policy history shows is that the term is problematic for some, and that it would be worthwhile us discussing how we can explain it better, but that there has been prior established consensus for it to be in the policy. SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By the standards which reopened the RFC, "not truth" has never gone through the required process. But, regardless of what one feels on that, here, finally, is an RFC narrowly focused on that very question so that we can find out once and for all if there is a consensus for the addition of "not truth". North8000 (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy close I supported new wording of the policy, but this is ridiculous. User North8000 behavior is very disruptive and POINTY.--  В и к и  T   13:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. Pretty obvious case. History2007 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, I assume speedy close here means there was no point in the Rfc and there was no conclusion from it. History2007 (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Snow close. We are at 7:1 against this absurd proposal, so it doesn't seem to have much chance. Hans Adler 21:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that you mean that there is no consensus to add "not truth". I know that so far there is only one supporter of adding "not truth", but I'm sure that there are others (actually others on both sides) who have not weighed in yet. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no "adding" since it was removed improperly when it was already there. It's been put back to where it was. Closing this RfC is not about what transpired today with the removal - but I would keep it open, myself, in a different form. Doc   talk  22:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, it has not specifically about the changes in the last few days. North8000 (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was added with nothing close to the 1.85:1 support among a huge number of editors that we have seen for removing it. And interpretation drift over the years has turned a relatively uncontroversial statement into a truly revolting invitation to lie. Hans Adler 22:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a "truly revolting invitation to lie". That is your interpretation of it. If you want to change policy, you are quite honestly going about it in a really, really bad way right now. That AN/I thread? It's not going to achieve what you want it to. Call it a "hunch". Doc   talk  22:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support speedy close This is a WP:POINTy and malformed RfC. Like it or not, editors should respect the results of the RfC and not try to abuse the process.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support closure and trouting North until he figures out that consensus does not require written permission being provided in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support closure as procedurally invalid. Crazynast 23:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re-establishment of RfC on second point?
I'm not going to be around for the next two days, but I wanted to just get this discussion started. After reading through the closing rationales from the three admins, it is clear that they all feel that the second part of the RfC, in regards to adding the paragraph explaining "Verifiability, not truth" in a more concrete way, was one that is more likely to pass if it is not involved with part 1 of removing the idiom. So...should we start a new RfC only dealing with adding that paragraph? Silver seren C 04:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gis a month or two first perhaps; but only perhaps? I opposed based on the second paragraph's poor wording before even addressing my own complex feelings on VNT. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then we should be working to improve the wording now so that all sides are happy with how it's worded (or as close to all sides as we can get). Silver  seren C 06:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Another point made is that the proposed wording was too long, and appeared to many as a change in policy, rather than just a clarification. I suggest crafting a much shorter and succinct change that scrupulously avoids changing policy (even in terms of emphasis), but clarifies what needs to be clarified. LK (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically, how do you think it would have changed policy or appeared to? --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My reading of things is that is suggested, particularly by one of the closers, that the second part of Blueboar's proposal was relatively unproblematic, compared to the first. On that basis, might it not be worth trying to get a local consensus for it here, then shove it in and see what happens. --FormerIP (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal re "Under Discussion" tag
Because the current first paragraph is only supported by about a third of editors, the "under discussion" tag is putting it a great deal too mildly. I think the true understanding of the RFC result is that the current wording only survives by default while we agree on how to replace it. I don't want editors to be deluded into thinking the current wording is estabished policy. Accordingly, I propose that we replace "under discussion" with a new tag that reads: "This paragraph is outdated. Please join the discussion about how it should read."— S Marshall  T/C 08:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not really how I read the RfC or intended my support at least. While I supported the proposal, I don't oppose the current wording. It is good as it is, but as many people claim that it can be misinterpreted or is too strong, I could support a compromise proposal as well. But my support for that compromise proposal shouldn't be read as an "oppose" for the current wording. Fram (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but also, balanced numerically by those who were broadly in favour of change but opposed because they didn't like this change. Individual opinions vary enormously.  Taking the RFC as a whole, I understood it as a broad condemnation of the current wording.— S Marshall  T/C 10:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Folks keep completely removing the tag. Please stop.  This sentence is obviously under discussion.  The big RFC was one particular attempt to resolve it.  North8000 (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please leave the tag. An "under discussion" tag does not mean "there is an open RFC about this"... it means there is on going discussion about it.  The RFC may be over, but the discussion continues.  Blueboar (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

ANI
For what it is worth, discussion of events here is also going on at this section of ANI. Novaseminary (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no reason to spill over into there. That was a specific issue to prevent edit warring on the policy page. It's been dealt with and is being closed. Leaky  Caldron  15:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request
Requesting a revert to the last version that included the "not truth" line, revision Amended diff here. Yes, yes, WP:WRONGVERSION and all that, but the last editor to make an edit explained here, he meant to restore it back to this version. It would be a good idea all-around to restore back to this baseline and proceed form there. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I second that. What sort of crap is this? Now there's no "not truth" alright - in a really underhanded unfortunate way. Shameful. Leave the damn thing alone until the "new" RfC gets going. Doc   talk  17:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to get the record straight, who are you accusing of acting in an "underhanded way" here? The protecting admin, S Marshall or Crazynas? Yoenit (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was an RfC to determine this. After there was no consensus to implement the change, this crap. What do you think - should he be mucking about like this, ignoring the RfC? For anyone to then elaborate on this "change" - totally disrespectful to the whole process. Doc   talk  17:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am amazed that the statement: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" has been removed. There is total chaos here. Please restore that and padlock it. Next thing we know someone goes and hand writes new things over the Bill of Rights and changes them until discussions taking place on a street corner near there end. The statement "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" needs to be restored and protected. History2007 (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

But the stable version DOES include the "under discussion" tag. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tarc is correct when he says that the protected version has my name on it and it's not the edit I intended to make. The version I wanted to restore is this version (Note: Not the version Tarc recommends, but the version immediately after it with the "under discussion" tag in place; see the discussion earlier on this talk page for reasoning.) Reaper Eternal was probably misled by my edit summary, which describes what I meant to do, not what I actually did.— S Marshall T/C 17:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just throwing in 2 cents that I agree with Tarc and S Marshall here. The "underhanded" comments, above, are completely out of line.  An error was made and admitted to.  That's pretty easy to get...  On a side note, I've now used I'm my quota of "agree with Tarc" for the year :-)  Hobit (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, for... I struck it, okay. Jeez. You know, when an RfC has been going on as long as it has and you don't get the result of consensus, you do not then start altering the controversial part of the policy to completely change what it said. Do you think I am wrong about this? Doc   talk  17:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The tag is what started it, but the fundamental rewrite of the whole intro is the real problem. Why did we even have an RfC if someone can just swoop in and change it so drastically? Didn't we think for one second that there would be a revert, leading to an edit war? Your reinstatement of the full edit was not very helpful at all, IMO. Doc   talk  18:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's looks like this page is going to continue to be hotbed of controversy. Best to extend the protection indefinitely. --FormerIP (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I find it amazing that an item that is the "bedrock of policy" can be edited at will. The constitution should remain intact unless there is a wide-ranging agreement among the populace to change it. History2007 (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was joking. It's funny because it's on the wrong version. --FormerIP (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Protest. It's inappropriate to start an edit request that one knows to be highly controversial, as this one clearly is. The inclusion of the words "not truth" is currently discussed under, where as of this writing 6 editors oppose it and zero editors support it. Hans Adler 19:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, but I did not have time to count the number of "speedy close" votes there. How many were there? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * These are just an indication that a lot of those who want Wikipedia to lie deliberately about things that we as editors have first-hand knowledge of (such as when we were libelling an ex-arbitrator for several days) aren't sure they will win the RfC. So they are trying the procedural route. Hans Adler 21:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am calling for a return to the status quo of many years. If you wish to discuss a further change, fine, but it should be restored to what it was in the meantime.  I opposed the RfC change, but I don't believe I ever argued anything about this since, so I really have no horse in this race. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have amended the diff in the request to call for this revision. Tarc (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, the multi-year status quo should reign until there is a serious consensus to change it. No consensus, no change. History2007 (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there a difference in the meaning of the two versions? --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Two cases: either different meanings or the same meaning. If different then the multi-year consensus should reign. If the same, there should be no problem in restoring the multi-year consensus anyway. History2007 (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As the meaning is substantially different only for those who believe that Wikipedia should be able to lie, and as this strange interpretation is a much more recent aberrancy than the actual wording, your analysis misses the point. There has never been a consensus that Wikipedia should lie. Hans Adler 21:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Total nonsense. You want to protest reinserting what has been there for years in favor of the garbage that is there right now (which no one seems to be in a rush to fix)? If you were on the other side of the debate you'd be mighty angry about it as well, and you know it. WP should be able to lie? WTF are you talking about, seriously? Doc   talk  21:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think why we had this discussion in the first place? The problem is that an increasing number of editors chooses to interpret "verifiability, not truth" to mean that we claim 'verifiable' facts even when we know them to be false. (Example – an admin supporting article-space libel against an ex-arbitrator in an article that mentioned his real name.) Hans Adler 21:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet that months-long RfC found no consensus for your point of view on the matter. Given your obstinacy at the Muhammad images discussion, there seems to be a pattern emerging here. Tarc (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (ec) Not quite, Tarc... the months-long RfC found that there was no consensus for a specific proposal... my attempt to resolve a problem ... it did not find that the problem does not exist, nor did it find that the problem does not need to be resolved. In fact, it found exactly the opposite. A significant majority of editors who commented (both supporting and opposing my proposal) actually agreed that there is a problem and that it needs fixing... what we did not agree on (yet) is how to fix it. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 2:1 looks like a pretty good approximation to consensus to me. No comment on the Muhammad images discussion. We are going to get the comment from Arbcom, and I can wait for that time. Hans Adler 21:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2:1 consensus for what? There is no consensus to change the policy at this time, period. Three independent admins arrived at that conclusion. Doc   talk  21:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the closers' comments again Doc... all three said that while we did not reach consensus with the proposed wording, they felt that we were quite close to a consensus, and that a revised wording had a good chance. All three encouraged us to keep trying to reach agreement. Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you do it the right way, as you have been, Blueboar. You don't do what Crazynas and North8000 did. And you don't leave the most classic case of WRONGVERSION (which is a humorous essay, mind you) that I've ever seen up to seemingly reward the utter casting aside of the process we've all been involved in. Doc   talk  21:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The precise numbers were 276:149, or 1.85:1. Hans Adler 21:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Consensus. Especially for what's up there now. Doc   talk  21:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's thankfully been fixed. Carry on with the debate. Doc   talk  21:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Without getting into all of that stuff, this is just to reinforce that Blueboar's description is correct. North8000 (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In no way would I ever suggest ceasing any proper steps to reach a compromise on this issue, and I never have. Obviously I'm for the "keep it as it is", but clearly there is no consensus for that either. Doc   talk  21:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Reaper Eternal" warned. If the user does not self-revert the controversial edit through protection, this goes to ANI. Manipulation of the short-term status quo by the minority that tries to keep the long-term status quo through filibustering is not OK. Hans Adler 21:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, boy. This is gonna be ugly. Doc   talk  21:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You can go to ANI, but keep in mind WP:BOOMERANG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone can relax now. Reaper Eternal found the part of policy that applies and took appropriate action. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your diff is of the inappropriate edit for which I have reported the admin. Hans Adler 22:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you fill us in as to what's going on and why the diff is inappropriate? Not meant to argue, just looking for info. : ) Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think I see what you mean from a message of yours above. I wasn't aware of the context when I first read it. It seems like WP:PREFER supports REaper Eternal's revert, but I guess I'll have to wait and see if I'm missing something. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Oh! I see the issue. If Reaper Eternal had reverted before it was protected, it would have been OK. But RE reverted after protection which is not allowed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A strict reading of WP:PREFER only supports reverting to a stable version if it prevents rewarding edit warring. It is by no means clear that this is what happened here. Details in the ANI discussion. Hans Adler 22:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At ANI I added something and gave it more thought before I read your message 22:44 above. As it stands at this moment, I'm not sure but I'm leaning towards RE's action being OK. I'll bounce over there and take another look at what you wrote. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, after visiting ANI again, I now see that you were looking at the issue in terms of the tag, and the text changes were only incidental for your purposes. I was just thinking in terms of the text.  I think it's too complicated to convey your ideas clearly over there, but if it somehow does get sorted out, it will probably be after the protection is lifted in 3 days or so.  In any case, I think Reaper Eternal acted in good faith and reasonably, considering how complicated the situation is. If it turns out he made a mistake, it's understandable considering the complications. Just my opinion. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If S Marshall had not made a slight mistake we would not be having this discussion. The protecting Admin. is wholly blameless. If you want to take someone to ANI take me for requesting protection in the first place. Leaky  Caldron  22:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Break out your popcorn, folks! AN/I thread's been opened. Arbcom, here we come... Doc   talk  22:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Or me for trying to break the deadlock... :) Crazynast 00:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Comment from uninvolved, neutral admin: I've removed the editprotect tag as there's clearly no consensus at present - please reach a consensus before requesting again.  An  optimist  on the  run!  21:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Good move. I do wish there was less chaos here. I looked on here by chance. I will not watch this page again for a while. This is just too chaotic and I think everyone should read WP:CALM a few times, take 3 days off, then restart. But I will take 30+ days off from this. History2007 (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you completely misread the point of the edit request, then. And as I noted earlier, I did oppose the rfC but honestly don't care much one way or the other in the end, so I am fairly uninvolved in this as well.  But this is moot now since the change has been made anyways. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For the Record
Since I seem to have caused a (pardon my french) shitstorm I figured I'd set the record straight on my actions. I am a firm beliver in the open model of the wiki, and WP:BRD suggests (for those who tldr everything) that.

My bold edits were an attempt to get discussion moving forward. I did not intend for this to become the drama-fest that it has turned into. (Although I understand that some users will use process arguments in place of arguments of substance when things aren't going their way). Honestly you can make suggestions here on the talk page and the way this page works, it will most likely be ignored. The solution to staleness is boldness, imho and that is the method I employed.

Although the closing administrators found no consensus for Blueboar's proposal, that doesn't mean there should be a red padlock on the page. As stated in my (preemptive) rationales above I feel that both my edits retain meaning while helping to satisfy those who dislike VnT (the protecting admin seems to agree that this was not a substantive, but rather editorial change). I have yet to see a rebuttal on how my edits lose meaning, just lots of drama about the process (and some references to them being excrement). Anyhow, FWIW I support the stable version being up IF the page is protected (which I don't support). Crazynast 22:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a question
How many times has the "not truth" bit been attempted to be deleted, only for that deletion to be pretty-much-instantly reverted? The fact that "It's stayed there for so long" doesn't necessarily mean that there's been consensus for it - just that nobody has been successfully able to remove it. Just a thought. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 08:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given we're at D, there's no need to B, because I'd R for POINTY. :) Fifelfoo (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently I believe we're at P. Acctually BRD recommends boldness in exactally this type of situation.  It was unfortunate that I chose a day when edit warring over the tag had started again... It is amazing how much passion there is over wording (not meaning) and retaining something that many editors find confusing.  Anyhow I've used up my bold for a while, I've also presented my D so if anyone wishes to comment they may. Crazynast 10:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by the 3 administrators when closing the RfC
For convenience, I copied and pasted below the closing comments from Archive 53#RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence.


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 * Somebody suggested that this might be the largest RfC, in terms of number of participants, in the history of Wikipedia. Whether that is true or not, it gives an idea of the scale of the task of closing it. The three administrators to whom the duty of closing this discussion fell were, , and , each of whom independently compiled their own thoughts on this RfC on a user subpage (Regents Park, Worm That Turned, HJ Mitchell). All three of us arrived at the conclusion that there is no consensus to implement this proposal, and each has written his own closing statement. Editors seeking a detailed post-mortem of the discussion are referred to the closers' subpages. All participants are thanked for their patience in awaiting a close, the result of which was inevitably going to disappoint a significant number of people. The closers would like to take this opportunity to express their gratitude, on behalf of the community, for the decorum with which the vast majority of participants conducted themselves for the majority of the discussion. is to be particularly commended for his efforts in putting this proposal together.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark My decision is that the RfC should be closed as "no consensus". The primary reason is that WP:V is an important policy document on Wikipedia and changes to it should only be made with strong community support. A 65% (or 62.5%) level of support does not provide that necessary degree of comfort. Additionally, it appears that many editors, on both sides of the aisle, believe that the changes are a policy change rather than a mere clarification. Since that was not the intent of the changes, and since policy is, in the final analysis, solely contained in wording, I suggest that going back to the drawing board is probably a good idea regardless of the level of support. --regentspark (comment)

Worm That Turned On the face of it, it appears that there is a clear support of the proposal, indeed that was my initial reaction. However, it is essential to remember that the RfC is not a vote, but rather a discussion. Having looked in depth at the arguments made by both sides, the outcome isn't nearly as clear cut as it appears to be. For one thing, partially due to the structure of the RfC and partially due to the minor nature of the change, there are editors holding the similar opinions, but in both support and oppose areas. On top of this, there are many editors who have provisos against their vote, large portions of the supporting editors do not support the proposal in full. Weighing up the arguments on both sides, they are pretty even in strength, and to me, the whole thing appears to boil down to one very important question - Is "Verifiability, not truth" clear enough for the first sentence? Most supporters acknowledge that it is evident what it means when taken in context, but on the other hand most opposers acknowledge that it can be misinterpreted. There are clearly many editors who do not believe it is clear enough to be in the first sentence and this proposal is a "first step" towards making that change. However, whilst there does appear a very strong opinion that something needs to change - notably that the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" needs more focus, there does not appear to be consensus that this proposal is the right way to go forwards. So, for the time being, the status quo should be maintained. WormTT &middot; &#32;(talk)

HJ Mitchell One of the first questions in need of an answer is whether this is a proposal to change the policy or to make a semantic change to a policy page. The answer is that this must be treated as a substantial change to policy simply because of the sheer number and strength of opinions it has provoked. Many arguments have been raised for and against this proposal, with the majority of unique rationales to be found in the oppose section, but such is often the way when people are asked to support a proposal or provide a rationale against it. The proposal as written has failed to gain consensus for its implementation. However, the waters have been muddied somewhat by including two separate (albeit related) changes in one RfC. The proposal to reword the lead, and in particular to remove from it the phrase "verifiability not truth" has met with considerable opposition. among the stronger arguments, opposers to this part of the proposal have objected to what they perceive as an attempt to reduce the importance of that phrase, to the increased verbiage in the proposed amendment, and to what they believe would increase the complexity of the policy and add to instruction creep despite the attempt to clarify it. Also mentioned was that the proposal appeared to be expanding the policy into areas already governed by separate policies and guidelines (such as reliability of sourcing). I hold no opinion on the merits of the arguments that attempt to address the substance of the proposal, but that these arguments have been independently expressed by multiple editors would suggest that they have legitimacy. I acknowledge that a majority of editors favour the proposal, many of them with excellent and well thought-out, articulately expressed rationales. However, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and making a major change to a core content policy when the changes is vehemently opposed by about a third of the community would seem foolish and ill-considered. Instead, further discussion should take place in the future (at least a few months from now) to see if any common ground can be found. It is likely that such discussion might be very productive in the case of the second part of the proposal (to elaborate on the meaning of "verifiability not truth" in the body of the policy). HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts? }}

--Bob K31416 (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I should mention that all 3 of us are willing to discuss and answer questions on this matter, though I don't know if the other two are watching this page WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got a fiver that says they're watching. :)— S Marshall  T/C 09:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What more would have been the minimum that you would find sufficient for passing the proposal? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are excellent reasons why it's a bad idea to put a strict numerical threshold on consensus.— S Marshall T/C 10:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed - as far as I'm concerned, I'm not looking for a numerical threshold (and if I were, this policy would have passed it IMO, which I alluded to in my statememt) - however I'm looking for consensus and that's what I didn't see. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that the question was not specific to numbers but pertained to any criteria for consensus. What more would have been the minimum that you would find sufficient for passing the proposal? --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a slightly more focussed proposal, which would allow the supporters to support without provisos. There were contradictory arguments that didn't help, for example many editors on the opposition camp were stating that they felt this was a change to policy, whilst the supporters were saying it was a change to the wording only. This lead to a lot of "yes it is, no it isn't" arguments, with little productive outcome. In general, the community does appear to be tending towards a wish to change this policy, it's just that this proposal was not the one to get through. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that the question pertained to the proposal and responses that you just ruled on.  What more would have been the minimum that you would find sufficient for passing the proposal? In other words, what would have been the minimum change in the responses that would have resulted in the proposal passing? --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what you're after. Do you want me to say "I would like to see X more supports or Y stronger arguments", because it doesn't work like that. Many of the supports were "weak", in that they accepted this proposal, but only tepidly because they didn't like the wording or actively not accepting it parts of it. The reasons that they put forward for the change were roughly equally balanced with the those put forward by the opposing group, though the opposers just clearly disagreed with this proposal, together as one. There just wasn't consensus. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you would have passed the proposal if some of the supporters were more strongly supportive in their comments? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Difficult to say, it would depend on how many of the supporters were more strongly supportive and what reasons they put for their comments, but yes, quite possibly. Although there was no consensus, I do believe it was tending towards supporting. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a strict numerical threshold. Rather, if the numbers are low then the arguments should be stronger and they should be in line with the stated purpose of the change (they were not). As Worm says, a more focused proposal would probably be better. ( I like the new wording this one --regentspark (comment) 14:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The numbers weren't low, though. --FormerIP (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For consensus on a major policy, they were in a gray area. But I don't think we should get caught up in numbers at all. The big sticking point was that a large number of editors felt that the proposal embodied a policy change when the sponsors of the proposal were insistent that that was not the case. Not a good idea and were I the creator of the proposal, I would be wary of implementing it under those circumstances, unless policy change had been the intent. I also think it is a mistake to view this as a win or lose situation. There is a lot of information in the RfC (which is, after all, designed to elicit comment rather than to necessarily seek a change) and my guess is that consensus will look something like: don't kick out truth from the lede (though rephrasing it as in the version I link to above is probably fine) and clarify the intent of 'not truth' or 'think it true' in a subsequent para. --regentspark (comment) 17:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right about how it will end up, but it won't be because of any consensus, except in a very weird Wikipedia sort of a way. --FormerIP (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I am wrong, but I think those who felt that it was a policy change were primarily those who believe that Wikipedia doesn't give a fuck about factual accuracy and that Wikipedia does and should happily and knowingly publish false statements provided they are 'verifiable' according to some objective criteria. I.e. the kind of people who argued for libelling Sam Blacketer. Needless to say, this is demonstrably not true. Arguing this way can bring Wikipedia into disrepute and cause harm to living people, or at least can cause no end of disruption, in the few cases when it makes a difference. The purpose of the proposal was precisely to clarify policy so that it cannot be misunderstood in this way. Of course those who misunderstand it in this way think of it as a change. That was a feature of the proposal, not a bug. And those who opposed the proposal also included some who agree that Wikipedia must not knowingly publish inaccuracies, but claimed that, for various reasons, "verifiability, not truth" cannot possibly be misunderstood that way anyway. The opposes by these two groups basically cancelled each other out because they are completely inconsistent with each other. Hans Adler 19:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's okay, Hans, we can achieve a form of words that won't be so widely misunderstood. We've been at this for a year and every time we repeat the discussion, we get a stronger consensus for change than the last time.  This time, it took some gamesmanship for the anti-change group to engineer a "no consensus".  The interesting part was the number of editors who were unhappy with the current wording: we have a broad mandate for change.  We've just got to find the right change.  I think an end to the Toxic Trio is entirely achievable.— S Marshall  T/C 19:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So this was closed no consenus with different, but somewhat similar reasons about clarity and whatnot. Assuming we have a clearer, more focused, RfC in the future and get similar numbers (with similar levels of arguments, but less murky), would it be still considered "no consensus"? If it would be closed as consensus to change, what would be the deciding factor, the increased clarity, the focus, or the fact that there are clear consistent numbers? If its closed as "no consensus" again, what would ever be considered consensus for something like this where the high levels that we see on more local topics can never be achieved (there will always be a core constituency on both sides who make up a significant number)?should WP:Consensus be rewritten to deal with these type of things where ultimately it may be that a majority straw poll is the only way to resolve long-standing issues to core policy that won't go away because of repeated closurers of "no consensus"? I just feel otherwise we are just grinding our wheels. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After this ridiculous outcome I am opposed to another big RfC. The next thing will have to be declared a poll, like WP:DATEPOLL, unless Jimbo's words ("It's a sad day for Wikipedia and evidence that it is time for some larger scale changes to our governance processes.") have any effect rather soon. Hans Adler 19:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

regentspark, Did you feel that the proposal embodied a policy change? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that policy is codified in words. If sufficient numbers of people believe that the wording change embodies a policy change, then, as a reader of consensus and regardless of personal opinion, I have to treat it as such. (Though, quite clearly from the RfC, whatever policy we have in place now is not exactly transparent.) --regentspark (comment) 21:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you, yourself, feel that the proposal embodied a policy change?   --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I appreciate you three taking the time to make a decision on thie RfC. Speaking from personal experience, I know it takes several hours to read through all the votes on either side.  In my opinion, however, I think you three gave a little too much weight to the "oppose" votes.  Because so many people responded and voted, I don't think there was as much worry about there being undue influence by any particular segment of Wikipedia.  Therefore, you could weight all the arguments fairly equally.  When doing that, it becomes clear that the numbers supported the proposed new wording and, in general, the rationale behind it.  While 63-65% isn't an overwhelming consensus, it is a clear majority.  Although not all the supporters completely supported the proposed wording, the fact that they put the word "support" in their vote, rather than "neutral" or "comment", meant that they supported putting the wording in as is, even if it wasn't their preferred version.  I say this a someone who probably leaned more towards the "oppose" sentiments.  If, when looking at the votes, you try to decipher whether the respondent feels that policy is being change or not, then I think you are reading too much into what they are saying.  What they are really saying, as the bottom line, is whether they feel the change should be implemented.  That's what really matters and is that simple. Cla68 (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading all the points of view, I found that many of those in the support column were there reluctantly, or would only support if small changes were made. I agree that there is a clear majority of people who want something to change and disagree with the current wording. I encourage further discussion to find something that the community can show consensus for. It wasn't a vote, but a discussion, despite the headings suggesting it was a vote. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, one of the biggest compliments that I can give to another editor is to say that they disagreed with me, but when I read their explanations, I was persuaded that their position was entirely reasonable, even if it wasn't the conclusion to which I had previously come. So I'm paying that compliment right now to the three closers. I supported the proposal, albeit tepidly (and that was the word I used). As time went on, I was impressed by how many members of the community liked the proposal. Then I was (frankly) pissed off by the upending of Sarek's closure, which made me really want the proposal to pass, nothing tepid about it. If I had been the closer, I would have concluded as Sarek and Cla did, not as the three did here (but, by then, I had a rooting interest). But what the three said makes very good sense to me. A significant portion of the community did not accept the premises that the proposal was a compromise, and that it was only a change in how things were explained, instead of in the substance of the policy. It's true, a lot of editors felt that way. When a significant part of the community is not persuaded, there really isn't consensus. That said, I don't really think there is still consensus that the existing wording is the best possible wording, that it cannot be improved. The best thing to do, going forward, is to be willing to accept that a successful compromise proposal will have to be seen broadly, not only by its authors, as really being a compromise. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Something borrowed (something blue)
Yea I know it's a nonsensical header, but with the verbiage around here all the obvious titles are taken...

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Truth is not sufficient, readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."  I feel both addresses the remove 'not truth' camp (obviously), while not losing any meaning (and I simplified it). Response? Crazynast 12:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It still suffers from a problem that bothers some of us, namely that writing "the" threshold can imply to some people that it's the only one, thus leading to the false impression that only prior publication counts. For other people suffers from the problem that it implies that there is something called "truth" which is independent of "verifiability", which they don't accept.
 * My view is that we should all let this matter rest for a while until passions cool. I now intend to do my bit towards this by removing the page from my watchlist. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Achilles heal for this proposal is that some people will object to it. --FormerIP (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I'm appreciative of the understated humor here how is this relevant (seems more like a topic at WP:Consensus?Crazynast 13:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think exactly the wrong approach is to brush yourself down and run headlong into the wall a second time. The outcome of a second RfC would be no different from this one. I think we either need to live with VnT - the issue is not that the wording was not quite right, it is that some users are attached to the specific three-word phrase - or think of another way of approaching the problem.--FormerIP (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't change 'the threshold'... for the distinction between verifiability and truth I refer you to our sister project. Crazynast 13:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that we should seriously consider Crazynas's proposal. It could be a masterstroke compromise that will save us 2 years of grief. The "threshold" wording question could be handled separately. North8000 (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like input from involved users on this page as to this change (which I personally prefer to my second try) it remains closer as close as possible to the current wording while responding to those who wish to remove VnT (and it still keeps "truth" in the lead). Thoughts? Crazynast 11:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Try two
"On Wikipedia verifiability, whether readers can check that material has already been published by a reliable source is the standard for inclusion, not what whether editors think it is true."



Deals both with the not "not truth" crowd, while retaining (and simplifying) the meaning (although I agree it's a further departure from my first change)?Crazynast 13:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Per Pesky Crazynast 15:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting how this is the default version that got fully protected.  Even though it was my edit I've requested unprotection which seems to have been declined.  Ahh well death to VnT on a technicality... ha... ha... ha...(also death to BRD apparently)Crazynast 15:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is hilarious. Anybody wanna place bets how long it will take before a highly involved admin reverts it to an old version, conveniently forgetting the "under discussion" tag? Yoenit (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Live example:
See here for a current example of the frustration caused by the "I don't care if it's not true, I can show you where it's published!" interpretation of The Problem Phrase :P Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * However if we look at the actually talk page of Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey then the issue appears to have been settled with little difficulty (unless you count actually having to cite some modern sources).©Geni 14:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In this instance, yes - but it would be almost impossible to try and find all those instances where people have added stuff to articles simply because it can be "verified", regardless of whether or not it is true. Anyone want to take that task on? (No!  Don;t look at meeeeee!)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 14:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What I would like to see is a real-life example of an editor knowingly wanting to include false, but verifiable information in an article. And not just one example.  If we're going to make major changes to this policy, we need numerous examples to prove that a change is necessary.  As of yet, no one has demonstrated that a real problem exists here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am really fed up with researching the examples ever and ever again because people just don't listen when I present them and then, at the next opportunity, proclaim again that there are no examples. The so-called Sam Blacketer controversy, in which The Register wrote stuff that we all could easily falsify because it was obviously incorrect and totally misleading claims about things that happened here on Wikipedia, subsequently copied by press all over the world, was the worst case so far. More recently we had WP:RS/N, which is about a dubious claim that might be technically correct (if Katzrin is a city and Majdal Shams is 'just' a considerably bigger village), but where insisting on "verifiability, not truth" would create a situation in which we would uncritically copy a pro-Israel POV into Wikipedia. In such a situation the "verifiability, regardless of truth" shortcut is not helpful at all. Its purpose is to shut down discussion instantly and declaring one side the winner, and that's not what we need in such situations. Hans Adler 10:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's a major change in the meaning of the policy, if that's what you meant. Why do you think it is a major change?  --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To AQFK
 * Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth membership information
 * Most of political activities of the Koch family consists mostly of demonstrably false information sourced to Mayer and/or Greenpeace.
 * The rank of the Libertarian Party (United States) (it says "3rd largest"), but the processing the real data provided leads to 5th or 6th. See, for example Libertarian Party (United States) for some of the analysis which didn't make the lead.)
 * Note that I'm actually in favor of keeping the false but verified (although possibly "historical", rather than "false") material in the lead in the last example, instead of the attempts to change it to 5th (from WP:OR of statistics on registered voters) or 6th (from further WP:OR of statistics on registered voters); there's a New York-only party which has more registered members.) — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Arthur. As you know, I am familiar with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.  What specifically is verifiable but false? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim that the members are "architects" (or) "engineers". It's reported by AE911T that they are, and that report is echoed uncritically in most media, but we know of at least two "members" whose "engineering" credentials were self-created.  I don't know the present status, but some of the additions were made after the "truthyness" was also verified.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As for Arthur Rubin's example #2, the Mayer article in The New Yorker has been found to be a reliable source by the community repeatedly and none of the information from it clearly false. Disputed by the Koch Brothers perhaps, but not demonstrably false. If you have information to the contrary please post it here.   Will Beback    talk    17:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As for #3, there are 23 listed citations for the Libertarian Party being the 3rd largest, and only one source which offers a somewhat different claim. That's a poor example of including false but verifiable information.   Will Beback    talk    17:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If we were able to check that it is not actually the third largest, then that would be an excellent example because of the large number of sources with the misinformation, not a poor one. For other reasons it's not a particularly good example: the claim "third largest" is rather vague. (Number of members? money in the coffers? do we implicitly exclude certain types of parties?) However, it's another good example of a situation where the "we don't care if it's false stop arguing that way you are disruptive!" would be totally inappropriate because it prevents a proper editorial consensus that takes into account the complexity of the situation. Hans Adler 10:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Arthur: I'm not sure there's any bona-fide false information there. In order for "architects"/ "engineers" (plural) to be factually correct, you only need 2.  We know that the guy who runs the group is an engineer.  I don't seriously doubt that he's the only engineer or architect in the group. In any case, how would you rephrase the current wording? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In turn,
 * The media repeated AE911T's claim that all of their full members were architects or engineers, and that was added to the article, even after being disproved.
 * Mayer is demonstrably false in associating the Kochs with a breakaway (not "successor") organization of CSE. I don't know if that assertion is still in the Koch articles, but it was added again after it was disproved.  There are other statements of hers which are demonstrably false, but that's just the one I remember.
 * And, the "3rd largest" claim is demonstrably false counting by 2004 or 2008 voter registration figures. Whether it's 5th or 6th is debatable.  The number of "members" a party has is not determinable, so the 3rd largest by a non-determinable criteria is not even wrong].  I think it should be removed from the lead, with the details given in the body; I objected to changing 3rd to 5th or 6th, but I don't think a statement we know is false if objective should remain.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As for #3, there are numerous scholarly and journalistic sources who explicitly say that the LP is the 3rd largest party. Instead of following those high quality sources, you seem to be asserting that we should ignore them and make our own determination based on raw, primary sourced material. If so, that is the opposite of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It is cases like this that make the proposed change so controversial. If removing "VNT" would allow editors to use original research based on primary sources to replace verifiable secondary sources, then it's clear why the change should not be made.   Will Beback    talk    21:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Arthur: The article does not state all of their full members were architects or engineers (or if it does, I missed it). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Banner at the top of the page
Currently, the banner at the top of the page reads:

"This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus."

Clearly, as the recent RFC has pointed out, there is a substantial disagreement about at least the wording of this policy, so it is misleading to say that it is a "widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". That would already be problematic if there were, say, 40% opposition to the current wording, let alone 40% support for some proposal, let alone more than 60% opposition to the current version, let alone 60% support for a proposal. The best thing to do is to write that this is a policy that no longer has the consensus it once had, but that discussions about modifications to it are still ongoing. Count Iblis (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Assumes facts not in evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Misrepresents the nature and extent of the disagreements over policy wording. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the Rationale section of the RfC, the proposal wasn't intended to change the meaning of policy, just clarify it, so the banner should still be OK. When you think of it, all this activity and controversy over many months for just a clarification is a bit strange. Perhaps the editing environment here is FUBAR and Foundation oversight is needed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that's a very good point, CI. If only someone had pointed it out to the closers. Maybe we could insert a tag.
 * I think you're right, Bob, that the proposal wasn't intended to change policy but, according to the close rationale, it failed partly because opposers believed it would have changed policy. --FormerIP (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But from the comments of the opposers in the poll, some of the opposers believed  wrongly that the proposal changed policy, since some essentially said that the proposal was eliminating the idea of "verifiability, not truth", which it wasn't. It's quite clear that the proposal didn't remove VnT from the policy since the proposal explicitly kept the phrase "verifiability, not truth" in the policy. This shows that some of the opposers may simply not have taken the time to read the proposal but based their vote on something they read elsewhere, which may have been misleading. Yet their votes weren't reduced in weight by the closers. Instead the closers concluded it was the proposal's fault, even though the proposal explicitly included the phrase "verifiability, not truth". --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Everything is madness here - I would certainly not have wanted to be anywhere near attempting to close that, but, regardless of what's been said and done, there may have been "no consensus" for change - but there was even less consensus to keep ... and many of the opposers, as mentioned, mistook the idea for being a change in policy, rather than a clarification of wording. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Close of most recent RFC regarding the addition of "not truth" to the lead
I think that the close was premature; we should have waited for more folks to weigh in (actually it should not have been closed yet and should be reopened) but even at it current size it was the largest-input review that the addition of "not truth" has been subject to. The results were:


 * 11.1% in favor of that addition of "not truth" to the first sentence.
 * 77.8% against that addition of "not truth" to the first sentence.
 * 11.1% neutral on the the addition of "not truth" to the first sentence

I think that this reinforces what has become obvious in the rest of the discussions; there is no consensus for that addition which crept in by stages. Now, with this perspective, we can move on to working something out.

North8000 (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

North8000: HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) That RFC was NOT "regarding the addition of 'not truth' to the lead" -- as that wording has been in the lead for the last 6 years (longer than even an old-timer like myself has been a member of Wikipedia).
 * 2) Any "results" that can be drawn from such a malformed and misleading RFC are thus meaningless.
 * 3) The prompt closure of this RFC was therefore both appropriate and widely supported.
 * 4) Your continued promotion of the fantasy that this wording is not the status quo is thus both WP:DEADHORSE and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.

You are joking, aren't you, North8000? You want to use the percentages in an RFC that only eight people bothered to register an opinion in while twice that many opposed the very existence of the RFC as meaning anything? There was a pretty strong undercurrent in that RFC that you had been disruptive by even opening it. I can promise you that if you attempt to act on the result of that RFC, that undercurrent will become a tidal wave.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * More like a tsunami. This section is pure madness, IMHO. Doc   talk  05:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * this has gone beyond scones and tea North8000, it is time for a bex and a good lie down. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I won't repeat the rationale, but there was good reason for it, (and it's structure) provided by the messed up situation that the larger RFC and compromise proposal contained therein was subjected to. Most importantly, avoiding (and exposing) the double standard that folks have been promoting. (crept in incrementally within RFC,and even the huge process that closed early November was not enough to even move it to another paragraph.) A strong reaction to a vague and manipulable process being considered to be the "THE" process for changes being changed,  whenever a warlord with a possie thinks it will serve them (as happened in early November), can change or invent the process,    and where an immense landslide for a small change is ignored/invalidated is a painful duty, not a personality defect.

I never had any plans to make edits based on this results of this RFC. For those who responded, my last sentence "Now, with this perspective, we can move on to working something out" was probably too vague. In essence, what it reinforces that "not truth" crept in, and then crept into a prominent place (by location and by having its context removed) with NO RFC (until mine), it is quite clear that there is no consensus for the current first sentence. This merely establishes a balance for the ensuing discussions, which was my only intention all along. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh, finally see where you're coming from, it should have been a clue that when many of the vest contributors were questioning the form of your RFC (who agree with the removal of the meme) that there was confusion. Crazynast 01:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on rumors?
What is the Wikipedia policy on rumors? A user keeps adding categories to the GSC Game World article implying that the company has ceased to exist. The problem with that is that there is NOTHING at all except rumors to back it up. 88.85.52.191 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're more or less in the right place. WP:V and WP:OR would be the relevant policies. If these rumors are actually published by reliable sources that can be added to the article, with an explanation, i.e. "it is rumored that....". But using rumor as the basis for adding a category, no. However, I would caution you that edit warring is not the way to resolve this. Keep discussing on the talk page, and pursue dispute resolution and/or protection if needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

A proposal
From the RfC closing, there appears to be consensus for clarification of VnT, however, any change should be modest, and scrupulously avoid changing policy, even in terms of emphasis. Keeping this in mind, I'ld like to propose the following change.

From: "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."

To: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Arguments about 'truth' are besides the point, for inclusion in the encyclopedia, Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth."

-- LK (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That strikes me as too repetitive. How about:


 * HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of these go wholly in the wrong direction. Again, as originally drafted, VnT was supposed to clarify that personal knowledge of the truth of something is not enough to add it to Wikipedia. It was never meant to imply that every published source is reliable, and indeed we have specific guidelines and mechanisms addressing the question of sources and their reliability for a specific statement. This wording would constitute an end run around those, in the lead of a core policy! Absolutely, categorically, no. -- J N  466  08:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Given that "by a reliable source" explicitly links to WP:SOURCES which explicitly explains "What counts as a reliable source", I do not see how this interpretation is possible. The problem is not with the definition of reliable sources, but with (implicitly or explicitly) allowing the impression of a truth criterion that is not directly tied to these reliable sources. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You may not see how this interpretation is possible, but it is. It goes like this: "It says that in the Norfolk Bugle, and that's a reliable source. Whether you think it's wrong or not doesn't come into it. Verifiability, not truth! EOD." -- J  N  466  12:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I actually like LK's one here:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability— whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Arguments about 'truth' are beside the point; for inclusion in the encyclopedia, Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth."

(Tweaked to "beside" rather than "besides", and semi-colon for comma) It retains the 'orrible VnT meme, but in a slightly less prominent place, and it addresses the "nature of truth" arguments very well. Could this actually be a way forwards which everyone might agree on? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 09:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pesky, may I suggest re-reading the RFC and looking at what the supporters say? There are more people who insist on removing VNT from the lede than those who insist on keeping it.  Therefore, any way forwards should have that characteristic.— S Marshall  T/C 09:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Any form of clarification that makes explicit what is currently only a misunderstanding is an extremely bad idea. Unfortunately that's what your proposal does. Your text, like "verifiability, not truth", works in the vast majority of cases. The problem is that when it gets applied to one of the few cases where it doesn't fit, and it does get applied this way, then we get massive disruption. Because in those cases it causes a value conflict. One side believes that deliberate lies in article space are despicable, even when we can 'prove' them and can wikilawyer that we have no choice. The other side believes that "verifiability, not truth" is a more important principle than getting things right, and that following the letter of a rule is sufficient excuse for unethical behaviour. It is totally wrong to forbid arguments about truth in those cases when all three of the following apply: (1) there is a truth as opposed to just opinions, (2) we all know the truth (by direct knowledge because it's a claim about Wikipedia, or by what is technically original research but by universal agreement correct and unproblematic original research), and (3) what we know to be the truth has not been published in reliable sources. In such situations the known falsity of the claim must be allowed to factor into our editorial decisions, and it will often lead to our not making the claim. Hans Adler 12:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Changes need to be subtle and incremental. No change that does not include "Truth" somewhere will never get past community scrutiny, you must realise that to make any progress at all. By far the best change to the lead is the version introduced yesterday but with truth in bold. It is a pity that it was attempted in a way guaranteed to fail because it is actually sensible, measured, incremental and contains the right words in more or less the right place to cause least concern.  Leaky  Caldron  12:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that's a good version. Or I guess we could even revert to a version from a few years ago when the "verifiability, not truth" was already there but was properly contextualised so it was harder to understand misunderstand. Although I suspect that the pure presence of the words has led to the misunderstanding among context-blind editors, who then subsequently removed the context because it didn't fit their misunderstanding. Hans Adler 12:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever the final proposed wording put up for consideration, it must be managed more effectively than the last RfC, the downfall of which was due, in part, to the lack of simplicity in the gathering of community input. The final result was far too opaque for closer's to see the real consensus for change that might have, it has been argued, existed. The responsibility for that has to be with those responsible for proposing it and I urge them to consider, not only a simple proposition but a simple way of assessing the !votes. Allowing endless comment upon comment and making thousands of qualifiers, rebuttals, counter arguments simply gives closing Admins. a ready excuse to arrive at no consensus. Proposers please take a hint - use an unambiguous method for gathering consensus. Leaky  Caldron  12:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it could help if we approach the problem in small steps, each with a huge RfC. (I also think that's a waste of everybody's time and attention, but apparently we have reached a stage in Wikipedia's development where that can't be avoided.) As a first step, we could make a list of examples where "verifiability, not truth" has been dubiously applied and ask specifically whether these applications were correct. I would expect a relatively strong consensus that they were not correct, and that alone would be very valuable as something to point to in new cases in the future. Hans Adler 12:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

@SMarshall - I've always been, personally, in favour of removing VnT entirely from the lede (to avoid the "I don't care if it's not true, because I can point you to where it's been published, and that's good enough for inclusion" misinterpretation (whether accidental or deliberate). I agree entirely that changes will have to be small and incremental, and that there was a great deal of misunderstanding in the RfC (quite possible caused by opposers simply not having had the time to read throught the months of background / foundation work behind it).  Today is a very busy day, so it's unlikely I;ll be able to comment again her for a while (and, in any event, I can think of little more to say!)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It must be understood that the wording currently sitting the first sentence rightly has the "under discussion" ta does NOT have a consensus (or even a plurality). That means we need to expeditiously come up with a version that does have consensus. It should be narrowly focused, if we try to fix 5 other things at once it will get too bogged down and complicated. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't know that and there's still no evidence that there's a real problem that needs to be fixed. AQFK (talk)
 * some 380 editors preferred an alternative over the current version and you pretend there is no problem? Yoenit (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it must be understood and continually attempting to browbeat editors to see it that way is such an incredibly self-defeating approach I think you should give it up now. You created a real bunch of hostility with your pre-prepared post-RFC intervention yesterday and this edit indicates a really negative mindset. You seriously run the risk of turning folks against any change proposal. The justification for changing the policy needs to be because it requires improvement, not because historically the accepted version did not have consensus. That is too much like trying to rewrite history and is a completely negative and ultimately unsuccessful strategy. Sorry to be blunt but the criticism is intended to move this issue forward.  Leaky  Caldron  13:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Returning to Crazynas's original proposal
Per some of the suggestions above I would like to discuss a modified version of Crazynas's original version: "A requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Truth is not sufficient, readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

There are three changes compared to the current text: (1) "A requirement" rather than the "The threshold" (2), rewording of VnT, while maintaining the close proximity and bolding (3) removal of "not whether editors think it is true", which is redundant with this form. My main problem with it is due to verifiability being part of a different sentence the back to back bolding looks weird and I understand that for many people the change will not go far enough, while other lament the loss of VnT itself. Is there anybody who objects to change (1) and (3) though? Yoenit (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On point (1)... While I prefer "threshold", I do not object to "requirement". On point (3) I could live with this wording, but it needs to be followed up by something along the lines of: "Please note, however, that Verifiability is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines besides Verifiability that can affect inclusion." Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why I changed "The threshold" to "A requirement". As somebody commented on the Crazynas's original proposal above, "the threshold" implies it is the single requirement for inclusion, while "a requirement" indicates there are more. I suppose we could use "A threshold" to achieve the same purpose, but I am not sure if that is proper English. (Has this specific part been discussed before? I did not really participate in the last 12 months of discussion). Yoenit (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yoenit is right. "A requirement" is preferable. If one wants to stress its importance, one could choose from various adjectives, e.g. "An important requirement". Another possibility is, "Wikipedia has various requirements for inclusion and the foremost requirement is verifiability...". --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ..."the threshold" implies it is the single requirement for inclusion
 * No, it does not. It implies that it is a mandatory requirement that must be realized before consideration for inclusion can even commence. It is, IMHO, not only a good word but the PERFECT word. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't "the threshold" also imply that verifability is a sufficient condition?  --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2011
 * Don't you folks have access to dictionaries? The word Threshold is the exact perfect word - it means the first step, or in this context, the first hurdle that must be crossed before any other steps can be taken. It does not mean it is the ONLY barrier to entry, it is just the FIRST one. To put it in more formal logical terms: Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient precondition for inclusion. I am obviously wrong in my long held assumption that discussions at policy level on the English Wikipedia would at least involve people that actually know the English language. Roger (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks for that I agree, however I can see opposition to necessary but not sufficient on it being "too legalistic". Crazynast 18:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Roger, A common meaning of threshold is "entrance". So the phrase,"the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" could be reasonably interpreted to mean that material enters Wikipedia by being verifiable. It doesn't say that there are further requirements to satisfy to enter Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, ofcourse you assumption is wrong. Enwiki attracts a large number of international editors, a number of which have a less than perfect grasp of English. If they need a dictionary to understand the lead sentence of our most important policy we are doing something wrong. The word is ambiguous anyway, as Bob's interpretation above is just as valid and leads to entirely the wrong understanding. 83.119.189.49 (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to put the objections of others in a different way, yes threshold would be an acceptable word if WP:V had some sort of "first step" priority over other policies such as WP:NEUTRAL. But it does not. For this reason the word "the" is a problem, and the word "threshold" is a problem. Editing Wikipedia does not require a "first step" of looking at WP:V and then at other core content policies. "A requirement" would be better, although it then probably requires an adjective.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice addressing of the main issue, but IMHO needs at least the initial statement of what verifiability is. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would simplify the language ("need" instead of "requirement", and "enough" instead of "sufficient") and also change the order around so that "verifiability" is the subject of the sentence and the first idea the reader comes across. So: Verifiability is needed for inclusion in Wikipedia.  It is not enough that information is true.  Readers must be able to check that information in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. How's that?— S Marshall  T/C 16:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with North8000: Just as in Wikipedia articles, the title Verifiability should first be defined. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Easy enough. For example:- On Wikipedia, verifiability means that readers must be able to check that information in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.  It is not enough that the information is true.  Verifiability is needed before you can add it. Sorted?— S Marshall  T/C 17:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That would work very well, for me. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know what the best possible one would be (we should still brainstorm) but that looks good. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's something about "Verifiability is needed..." that doesn't feel right for me. An alternative is, "The information needs to be verifiable before it can be added." Just another possibility to consider. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would work: ''On Wikipedia, verifiability means that readers must be able to check that information in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough that the information is true. The information needs to be verifiable before it can be added. -- J  N  466  21:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My first try, but replace threshold with minimum requirement. Crazynast 18:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The minimum requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Truth is not sufficient, readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."
 * What do you think of the ideas in the previous messages re defining verifiability first, and using "need" instead of "requirement"? Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've always rather liked "minimum requirement". But "needed" is almost as good.

"Verifiability is the minimum requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Readers must be able to check that information in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source; it is not enough that information is true."


 * Pesky ( talk …stalk!) 19:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an elegant reformulation. Crazynast 00:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (@Bob)Regardless of if I think they are better, I think the closer we stay to the current wording, the better chance we have of making a change that sticks. Slow and Steady does the trick. Crazynast 00:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not like the WP:BOLD attempt on Wednesday then! ;)   Leaky  Caldron  00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, my first attempt, although bold was (I feel) as incremental as could be. Unfortunately that wasn't the version that stuck thanks S Marshall through the protection.Crazynast 00:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I get what Bob Pi is saying. "Verifiability is needed" rings a little bit false because of the passive voice. Try this tweak:- On Wikipedia, verifiability means that readers must be able to check that information in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it. Getting warmer?— S Marshall T/C 19:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty hot for me. -- J N  466  21:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should keep the VNT meme. So, what about these, I originally posted above, but this seems to be the more active section:


 * 1) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough for an editor to assert that something is true or false.
 * 2) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The beliefs of editors are irrelevant at Wikipedia.
 * 3) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The beliefs of editors about whether information is true or false is irrelevant at Wikipedia.
 * 4) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Whether the sources are right or wrong is not for Wikipedia editors to decide.
 * 5) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to determine which content an article should present. The beliefs of editors about whether what the sources say is true or false is irrelevant in determining article content.<ref"We do not care about the fact that you (an editor) believe X is true, if you want to add X you have to be able to show that someone else (a reliable source) believes X to be true"
 * 6) The necessary condition for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to determine which content an article should present. The beliefs of editors about whether what the sources say is true or false is irrelevant in determining article content.<ref"We do not care about the fact that you (an editor) believe X is true, if you want to add X you have to be able to show that someone else (a reliable source) believes X to be true"
 * 7) The necessary condition for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to determine which content an article should present and whether the information is important enough for inclusion. Beliefs held by editors about whether what the sources say is true or false are irrelevant in determining article content.<ref"We do not care about the fact that you (an editor) believe X is true, if you want to add X you have to be able to show that someone else (a reliable source) believes X to be true"

Put Blueboar's formulation as a footnote. Prefer the last one. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 20:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All those keep the Toxic Trio and they also keep "threshold". They represent tiny variations from the status quo, and can therefore be expected to please about 33%.— S Marshall  T/C 20:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * SMarshall's definitely getting warmer. As far as I recall, nobody had any problems with VnT slightly further down the page, with the link to the (possibly slightly tweaked) essay on same. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not true. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with Tryptofish. I would much rather have VnT in the lede, but was willing to compromise with the version Blueboar, Typtofish, and North8000 worked out with the help of others. It would be wise not to draw too many conclusions unless one has read all of the talk pages material for say, the last 9 months.... --Nuujinn (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I could live with the first one, provided that we drop "or false". It's redundant. If I assert that X is false, I am asserting that the statement X = false is true, and that is exactly the type of unverifiable truth that I shouldn't be allowed to write in the article. However, I am absolutely within my rights to start a thread at RS/N and argue that X is false and should not be added to the article. -- J N  466  21:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

My 2 cents:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Of course, only true statements should be included in Wikipedia articles, but being true is not enough – readers must also be able to verify material included in Wikipedia from a published reliable source.

This attempt at a compromise keeps the VNT phrasing while making clear that truth is not unimportant. It also explains what is meant by threshold here. It leaves open how to address the issues that arise if an editor just knows something found in a RS is false – but we can't expect the lead paragraph to discuss all aspects of the policy. --Lambiam 21:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The reasons why I feel that's unsatisfactory are:- (1) Introducing the concept that "only true statements should be included" will be unpopular and seen as a radical departure, and even I would need convincing that it's a good idea; and (2) Retaining VNT in the lede will be unpopular with the majority who would like to see it gone; and (3) Losing "threshold" is one of the few things that most of us can actually agree on.— S Marshall T/C 00:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever else editors following this discussion might think, I would suggest being very skeptical of (2) and (3) just above. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Added a couple above, and addressed the "threshold" problem. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Tryptofish, before the RFC started, you and Nuujinn (in particular) were willing to go along with Blueboar's compromise in a spirit of consensus building, but you seemed to feel skeptical about its prospects for success because you thought mine was a minority position and that the wider community would not want to remove VNT. Have you revised your feelings in the light of the RFC at all? I respectfully suggest going back to the RFC and reading what the supporters actually say.  Personally, when I read it, I see an extremely large number of editors who either express discomfort or dissatisfaction with VNT, or else express pleasure at its removal from the lede, or else express that Blueboar's formulation without VNT in the lede was preferable (usually on grounds of clarity).  The number of editors who said this considerably exceeds the number of editors who opposed for any reason at all.  Please, do go back and check what editors are actually saying.  I'm quite convinced that what the community wants is wording that's more nuanced, less simplistic, and less sloganistic  than the current formulation.— S Marshall  T/C 01:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is essentially how I read it too. Although I agree there might not be consensus for Blueboar's specific change, there is consensus for change of some sort (specifically in regards to the prominence of VnT). Crazynast 01:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you with respect to "more nuanced, less simplistic, and less sloganistic than the current formulation". I agree that the community wants that, and I also agree that I want that, that I think it's a good idea. Where I think you make an honest mistake is in extrapolating from that to the conclusion that a significant number of editors really see "threshold" as something they would lose sleep over one way or the other, and, more importantly, the conclusion that there was anything like a consensus that moving VNT out of the lead was actually necessary, something where a large number of supporters would have opposed if the more nuanced language had been presented within the lead. I can see a significant number of respondents who opposed, but who would have supported if they had felt that there was more of a compromise, as they see compromise, not as you personally see it. Numerous editors felt that taking VNT out of the lead amounted to a substantive policy change, and the closers of the RfC noted that fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the VNT argument for a moment, I was aiming for "more nuanced, less simplistic and less sloganistic" with: On Wikipedia, verifiability means that readers must be able to check that information in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it. How would you react to that? Substantive policy change?  A minor tweak that eliminates possible but unintended readings?  Or can you see new problems that it introduces?  (I ask you specifically because for my purposes you're a useful barometer.  If I can convince Tryptofish, then I have a way forward capable of converting moderate and fair-minded opposers, you see.)— S Marshall  T/C 01:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I logged out yesterday after my comment above, so sorry about the slow response. My reaction to the words as quoted there is that I like them. (I also liked the version that Blueboar wrote for the RfC proposal.) Substantive change or minor tweak? Personally, I don't know. I could see an argument either way, and I personally don't care so long as I see it as an improvement. But I would be only one response to a future RfC. So what I'm focusing on is my reading of how other editors collectively might see it. Based on the just-finished RfC, I'd say about a quarter of those who responded would consider it to be a big change, one with which they would disagree. They would observe that the familiar VNT phrase is not to be found, and they would decide right then and there that it's a significant change that, in their opinion, does not fix anything that was broken. In the workshop pages where the recent proposal was developed, I advocated using the more nuanced wording that Blueboar had come up with – and which I rather doubt that any amount of wall-of-text in this discussion will end up improving upon – but using it within the lead section. That way, VNT (as a phrase) is still in the lead, but it is changed from a slogan to a nuanced explanation. I think that might actually get community consensus. I think the rest is likely to be doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay, I don't expect you to edit Wikipedia 24/7! I'm glad you see it as an improvement.  I'm less concerned about the people with a reverential attitude to VNT because with the proposal I'm building, I'm aiming to keep all the people we have on side already and also convert some of the WP:CREEP opposers by keeping it shorter.  Obviously, this simply means finding ways to frame Blueboar's compromise more succinctly, which I see as the most achievable route to consensus.— S Marshall  T/C 21:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some issues that could arise with that:
 * Can be e-lawyered to mean any page on Wikipedia. Not that it will be successful, but it can waste time and effort.
 * Again, it doesn't deal with the issue people say that as long as something is verifiable, it deserves to be put in even if its patently false. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  03:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such issue. That is the way Wikipedia works.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  06:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By now, we've produced so many examples of times that it has been an issue that I'm thinking of compiling a FAQ so that when someone new joins the discussion, we can point them to one page containing the evidence instead of having to retype it every single time. Jinnai, that will have to go into a second paragraph, which will begin with Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The fact that something has been published does not necessarily mean it belongs in an encyclopaedia article and will go on to recommend that where such an issue arises, it gets taken to the talk page.— S Marshall  T/C 10:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that needs to be in the same paragraph. Delegating it to the second paragraph causes several issues. First and foremost it makes it appear we aren't concerned about it to the point it gets shafted to a secondary point, ie its important, but not really something we care as much about. Considering we have a pillar dedicated to in part this as well as other pages like WP:NOR and WP:RS, that seems to fly in the face of that. It may not seem like an issue to you, but placement of information is key. It delegates what is important because information in the middle is forogtten easier while information at the end (except for conclusions/summarizations) are often looked over.

Thus it does not address the issue I raised in the latter section: You want the opening statement to have the least ability possible to be misinterpreted as possible. Details about that can go later, but not stating that we also don't post stuff just because you can find a piece of published material from a RS is something that isn't explained in the opening statement and thus will be misinterpreted, whether out of malicious intent or naivety. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see the revised suggestion for the lede at User:S Marshall/V.— S Marshall T/C 21:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The meme outside Wikipedia

 * It may be my background in advertising and public relations, but VnT should not be kept because it makes it too easy to twist in negative terms by those outside the Foundation. This makes it look like we don't care about truth to the wider public because we use that exact phrasing. When taken out of context - when it often is by media and other organizations whether on purpose or for nafarious reasons - it makes the average person think something we don't want them to: that we care more about something having a source than whether what that source says is true. Even a slight rewording to something like "not just truth", "venerability of truth", "venerability. Truth is not enough." would be more difficult to confuse by the those less stepped in Wikipedian policy. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  21:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, but that's exactly correct: there are many untrue statements in Wikipedia which are kept because of the sources.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have examples? If that is the case, it is not the wording of the policy that is at stake, but the content. --Lambiam 22:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (to Jinnai) That is then an obviously malicious twist – do you have any example of others taking VNT out of context for nefarious porpoises? The only place where I saw this discussed in the media was here in The Malta Independent online, but they quote the full sentence in what seems to me a good-faith discussion, and I feel it is the phrase "not whether we think it is true" that does the harm of making truth appear irrelevant to us. --Lambiam 22:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A simple search of google news's archives comes up with a whole slew. Some of them use the entire phrase, but many truncate it off at "truth". . EDIT: More from google scholar, including using the truncated statement as a reference. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  22:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not nefarious, it's central to our sourcing policy. For example, the Abortion article acts as if there is no such thing as an abortion on a post-viability featus.  That's not true, and it's obvious.  But that's what the MEDRS sources say, and so one has to deal with that, and if there is no way to get the obvious true fact that some abortions occur post-viability in under policy, it stays out. VNT is a very good way of telling editors that this is the way WP works.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then you have discussion around the net which doesn't put it in good light such as slashdot, comments picked up by The Atlantic, etc. These all point back to that phrase. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  22:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would anyone object if I split off this discussion into a separate subsection? It's a bit of a distraction from the drafting process.  All the best— S Marshall  T/C 22:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jinnai, that's a good reason to explain the phrase, but not necessarily to change it.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  06:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Strange, for me the Google news archive search yields no hits at all. The scholar search does, and some sources interpret our policy as based on a naive assumption that all published material is factual, but I did not spot any malicious misinterpretations. (Many of the results are behind a paywall, though, and I did not look at those.) --Lambiam 11:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I get 5 or so hits with google news archive. I can post them later. Even if this is not malicious, but purely naive interpretation (i highly doubt that is the case on many less reliable sources such as blogs and forums that it is never done that way) the naive interpretation is specifically a result of that phrase taken out of context because of the exact way its structured. When designing something that is the centerpiece or leading statement of a document, you don't design it in a way that needs a lot of background or explanation to the naive indivisual. You want to design it in a way that is least likely to cause confusion because that will be the first thing they see and first impressions do matter. Right now the first impression is to some that Wikipedia doesn't care about truth, just that it cares about verfibility and egerly posts verfiable, but known to be false info rather than post info everyone knows to be true because it isn't verified. This is in part because the meme, like they often do, truncates the statement, albeit we help them out by making such an easily misinterpreted statement that it has to have an explanation of the explanation. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, academics are so naive and Wikipedians are so smart! Maybe we should change WP:RS too so only the facts/opinions of Wikipedians (instead of academics) are allowed in articles! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

VNT needs to stay
Verifiability, not truth needs to stay. It's the best recourse we have for telling editors who don't understand sourcing policy that their own opinions don't matter. It's a forceful statement, and any trouble it may cause is overbalanced by the good it does. It shakes people out of their preconceptions about what we're doing here. It could be explained better, but the meme is a powerful tool, and I believe that's why it has stayed, and why it should stay: it helps prevent POV pushing. Here's an example, one among countless others. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 09:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No it's not, it just sounds glib and patronising. Like you can antagonise someone who is striving for accuracy by doing the equivalent of templating them with some bland meme. Great. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If it stays, it should be out of the lede. It's getting a bit daft if we want to keep a "quirky little saying" on what seems to be almost an WP:ILIKEIT minority-popularity, when it can be, and is (and no, I have no way of knowing how to hunt out all the times ...) tweaked around to mean "I don't care whether it's true, because showing where it was published makes it good enough for inclusion."  Paraphrase: "Wikipedia only cares whether it's been published before, not whether it's actually true."  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's just a slogan. It has about as much "force" as where's the beef? or the lady's not for turning: a simple phrase that encapsulates a simplistic idea. It's used to shut people down, particularly at times when we ought to be starting a conversation with them, such as when they're new and trying to contribute constructively to article-building.— S Marshall T/C 10:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some people are not open to a rational conversation. VNT is a useful slogan to clearly tell off people who stubbornly insist on adding something they just "know" to be the Truth. But we must take care not to create the suggestion Wikipedia doesn't care whether the content is true as long as it was published somewhere. --Lambiam 11:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a perfectly good point, but "It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it" is better still. And the follow-on (which was the one that drove it home to me) is "Exceptional claims need exceptional sources."  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ....and all this at a time where new editor drop-off has been linked<font color="#002bb8">[by whom?] to a rise in templating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pesky, I like that follow-on too. Rather than keep reposting my preferred version every time someone makes a good suggestion, I've put it at User:S Marshall/V.— S Marshall  T/C 11:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether we end up keeping VnT in the lead sentence or not, we should definitely change what follows the phrase to Pesky's proposed wording – "It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it". Because that is what VnT has always been about. -- J  N  466  11:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What is important is what consensus can be found. We have had so many polls, debates, RfC's etc that we know pretty well than we need to keep VnT in some form, but not in the first sentence. There is the problem, because although these two points are pretty clearly what consensus wants, there is also a feeling which is in power that this policy also should not be changed based on any consensus which contains lack of near unanimity in all details, which is almost impossible for any wording of WP:V, including the current traditional non-consensus one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was SMarshall's wording, I think, actually. I just pasted it!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)  I'm really with Casliber here - actual communication is so much better, whenever possible.  My real understanding of the thing came about through extended (and fascinating) conversations with people working in the area I;d been attempting to edit!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, proper comminication is always better. VNT needs to go because what may be good for a newby on editor on the "Occupy Wall Street" article (and whether this is such a good way of communicating policy is already under dispute here) is certainly not good for a newby editor who happens to be a professor who decides to improve some science article. In the latter case, his "truth" is solidly based on what can be found in reliable sources, but it may take a lot of discussion to explain why the current version of a wiki article is wrong on some point. There is a good reason why you need to study some years at university to become a scientist, simply being able to read and understand the current literature requires years of study. Sometimes there are no single references you can point to to comminicate well established facts. Count Iblis (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Or the other way around. A professor may be so convinced that a certain scientific fact is incorrect, that you have to pile sources up to the ceiling to convince him that it's correct. And even then he denies the sources. Remember Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, so professors are also just normal human beings and they can end up in situations analogous to the "Occupy Wall Street example". However, if they have something to say within their field of expertise which requires some non trivial explaining, then the other editors should be patient. It can be that a wiki-article is fundamentally flawed (according to existing scientific knowledge), yet you can't immediately point to a single ref that that would make that immediately clear to people who only have limited knowledge about the topic. In such a situation, the editors should actually have the mindset of trying to find out the truth about the issue under discussion, but of course, such an exercise is 100% based on academic sources. This is why I think "not truth" communicates the wrong message. Count Iblis (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The professor, like any other editor, needs to make his legwork and cite the reference(s) supporting his claims. There are professors who have ideas that are considered biased, idiosyncratic or fringe by other people in the field. Such a professor could take control of an article, and dismiss all sources brought forward by non-experts, claiming it would take too long to explain the "truth" to non-experts. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

With all the many months of discussion of whether the phrase "verifiability, not truth" is worthwhile (i.e. referring here to just the phrase mind you, not the idea behind it)  has anyone changed their mind? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes... I have changed my mind several times over the last six months. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For me the question is moot because,as a compromise, anything that solves the common misreadings/misuses of "not truth" I would consider sufficient. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've changed mine - it needs to go from the lede, we need to ensure that it's abundantly clear to people that we're not saying "It doesn't matter how untrue it is if it's published", VnT can go further down the page to appease the WP:ILIKEIT people, and with link to VnT essay, maybe - and the section on truth vs. untruth. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 14:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It's ironic that one thing that has become clear over the last 12 months of discussion is that 95% of everybody agrees on what the intended meaning of the "not truth" statement is, and 100% agrees with what the 95% think that it says. And yet here we are. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are correct in saying that most people agree on the intended meaning... but that raises a question about your previous comment: if there is a common understanding, how can there also be common misreadings/misuses? I am not saying misreadings/misuses don't happen (they do)... but I have to question whether they are common. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Ironies abound, including that outside commentators observe how accurate Wikipedia articles are, even as they sometimes also quibble over the phrasing of this policy. Thus, misreading or misuse is nugatory, in any meaningful way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By the by, Blueboar, excellent work in all this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks... as to your last... Saying misreadings/misuses are not common does not mean they are nugatory (ie trifling or inconsequential). As I said, they do happen, and they can be quite problematic when they do. If we can clarify the wording of the policy to lessen the chance of misreading or misuse (even if such misreading or misuse is not that common) that is a good thing. Blueboar (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can is an admirably exact way of stating that (given the attitude about this page)Crazynast 16:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, answering your question, misreadings/misuses are VERY VERY common. (although the 5% would say that those are also correct readings). I'd be happy to go further on this, but, before going further / if we were to go any further on that, IMHO we should see if my "95%" statement is right, and clarify what the 95% say and what the 5% say. Are y'all interested in doing this? North8000 (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say that perhaps we don't actually have broad agreement on what the intent is? If so, it might be useful to see what the differing opinions are... but if you think we actually do agree on intent, I don't see the need to get sidetracked by it. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that we do have agreement on intent but that, due to complexities, we don't realize that, nor have we ever even clearly stated what 95% agree on. So I think that I'm going to state what the 95% agree on:
 * "Not truth" is intended to mean ONLY that truth is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. So, this sentence should be used ONLY to enforce the verifiability requirement.
 * North8000 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, I think that the other 5% would agree with the above except for the "ONLY" part.  They would say that "not truth" has other intended/meanings uses such as:
 * If a discussion arises about possibly EXCLUDING sourced material because it might be false, that THAT SPECIFIC PHRASE may be invoked to terminate that conversation.
 * That truth/accuracy never matters in Wikipedia
 * That THAT PARTICULAR PHRASE may be used as a force for inclusion of any sourced material. Not just a REQUIREMENT for inclusion, but as a FORCE for inclusion.
 * North8000 (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But do they succeed in those arguments? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, very very often. Either in an debate that has gone to conclusion, but more often by making it so that countervailing them would be so time consuming (RFC etc) that their opponent gives up. North8000 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, VNT needs to go. Yoenit (talk) 17:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

We have all kinds of editors on Wikipedia, and our policies have to appeal to all of them. Versions of the lead we are talking about are not mutually exclusive. We must both appeal to those who won't read further than a lead, especially initially, and there are lots of those, and those who will. We can include simplistic wording which will impact some readers, and sophisticated wording for those who respond to that kind of text and for those who with more experience will be looking for more explanation. You catch and interest a reader in the lead, both kinds of text have to be accessible right away. (olive (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC))
 * You also need to make certain you do not, but using specific wording, cause more confusion among those not stepped in Wikipedian policy such as the wider world most of whom are readers and possibily occasional ip editors. VnT causes just such confusion. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hands up anyone who was (or can actually find someone who was) swayed by the three-letter meme as a new editor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In fairness, several people have already claimed to have experienced some kind of epiphany about Wikipedia upon encountering the phrase. Just read the RFC.— S Marshall  T/C 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Me. I wouldn't say that I was swayed to edit something differently than I would otherwise have done, but I remember very clearly seeing it early in my editing experience, having an initial reaction of huh??, and then thinking that it was an impressive idea, and being influenced to keep it in mind as I went forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. That's the kind of phrase it is, thought provoking but not misleading. It certainly impressed me as a new editor, and I found it clearly understandable.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  07:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too. The phrase infuriated me, and then really made me understand something. That's why my objection is more to the "...not whether editors think it is true" that has crept in since then. There was no trace of it in 2006 or 2007. By the end of 2008 there was something like it, but we still had "material added to Wikipedia", making clear that we were talking about a minimum criterion for adding rather than keeping material. It was still there in 2009. By the end of 2010 the "material added to Wikipedia" had become "material in Wikipedia", to arrive at pretty much the present wording: "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." -- J N  466  11:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't swayed by that one - my first thought was: "What? We don't care if it's true or not, just that it's been published?" The one that really made me understand was "Exceptional claims need exceptional sources."  That, I understood straight away.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's clear to me now that many people understood it the way you did. So I do think VnT has to go. -- J N  466  12:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From the slogan verifiability, not truth one could get the impression that Wikipedia is sourced, not credible. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The lead para of WP:V over time
Please take five minutes to look this over. See how the lead para has morphed away from what it originally said to arrive at a wording that has quite different and more far-reaching implications today.

2006: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

2007: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

2008: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

2009: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Since this is the English language version of Wikipedia, English language sources are preferred, but non-English sources are allowed.

2010: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

2011: 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.

It used to be a minimum criterion for adding material to Wikipedia. Today, it's something quite different, and quite wrong: it's an abrogation of responsibility for the content we keep in Wikipedia. I'd be perfectly fine with the 2007 version. -- J N  466  11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting. The third sentence is itself a classic "traditional" sentence in WP policy, and if it were returned it might improve the opening?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's still in the lead. JN, each of these evolutions happened without much fanfare, by a series of what I've called "stealth edits" (i.e. edits that received minimal supervision), but now they can't be removed even if you have a year of argument, massive barney on the talk page, and then the largest RFC in Wikipedia's history that leads to a 2-1 majority in favour of change. As North8000 found recently, we can't wind the clock back and challenge those edits now.  Wikipedia's bizarre rules prevent us.— S Marshall  T/C 11:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it is bizarre, but we'll just have to work through it. As it happens, "not whether we think it is true" was purportedly added to lessen the impression that Wikipedia did not care about truth (something like: we are not dissing truth, only editors' possibly mistaken assumptions of what is true). There was an RfC then: . But when the context of it being a minimum criterion for adding material was lost, it ended up having the opposite effect. (And FWIW, the user who added "not whether we think it is true" is currently banned by arbcom, for sustained edit-warring and unduly advancing fringe points of view.) -- J N  466  11:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What's the plan?
As it stands, there was an RfC where 3 administrators found that a poll with a majority of 62% support, 34% oppose, 4% neutral from 444 participants did not constitute a consensus. From the discussions so far, I don't see how another RfC for change of the first sentence would turn out much different. What's the plan? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a dilemma. As Blueboar said, no one denies the RfC was somehow close to success, but it is hard to imagine what, in the real world, could ever come closer to a clear consensus when so many people and opinions have to line up in some approximate way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Any compromise version with or without "VnT" as the basis will be rejected. That's so obviously the crux of this situation, and what the next RfC should be about: to simply remove the phrase from the lede or not. The language around it is almost incidental when it's all about the "toxic trio" (for both sides). A RfC should just be relaunched to suggest its removal, IMHO. Doc   talk  11:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Having read, and re-read, and re-re-read the whole thing, I strongly feel that a fair proportion of the opposes were pile-ons in a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that it was a policy change, not a clarification of policy to avoid misunderstandings. If they had only all read all the months of work which preceded the RfC, things may have been very different.  We were NOT trying to change policy - but that is how a lot of people seemed to view it. It would be very interesting to see how the numbers came out if one were to remove all the opposes which were based on "policy change" arguments.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I always saw it as a policy change. There would be no point in me persisting for the requisite fourteen months if it had just been a tweak.  Personally, I think the answer is to rewrite Blueboar's compromise more succinctly and pithily, so that we can convert the people who opposed based on WP:CREEP.  We were within an ace of success, so we don't need to pander to the VNT zealots.— S Marshall  T/C 11:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again with the "zealots". Is that the word of the month? Could you use a little more... "friendly" terminology? You don't have to, but this isn't meant to be trench warfare, ya know. Doc   talk  11:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I do think that VnT has to go. Looking at the history of the lead para, it's become clear that too many people have simply misunderstood it, regardless of how useful the phrase has been to some of us. So here is another proposal:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed, even if it is true.

That will still be "annoying" enough to provoke thought in newbies. -- J N  466  12:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It will be seen as a policy change by many. Simply if you are changing the lead paragraph of a core policy page and messing with the emphasised phrase it is, de facto, a policy change. Since this section is the most sensible place I will restate what I said earlier. Whatever the final proposed wording put up for consideration, it must be managed more effectively than the last RfC, the downfall of which was due, in part, to the lack of simplicity in the gathering of community input. The final result was far too opaque for closer's to see the real consensus for change that might have, it has been argued, existed. The responsibility for that has to be with those responsible for proposing it and I urge you to consider, not only a simple proposition but a simple way of assessing the !votes. Allowing endless comment upon comment and making thousands of qualifiers, rebuttals, counter arguments simply gives closing Admins. a ready excuse to arrive at no consensus. Proposers please take a hint - use an unambiguous method for gathering consensus, if the rules on polls allow it insist on a simple "yes", "no" or "agree", "disagree" with comments made elsewhere and do no jump on every single editor who disagrees because that just annoys people and makes the closer's job simple - no consensus. Leaky Caldron  12:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaky Caldron, on this issue, you will not get a clearer way to run a RFC than last time. It presented a choice.  The alternative presented was complicated because it represented a compromise between two entrenched positions.  The alternative at the next RFC will also be a compromise, so it will be complicated.  We can't ban editors from discussing the choices they're given and we wouldn't want to if we could.  Please don't criticise the process because Blueboar and others worked very hard to keep it as simple and clear as possible and you're being disrespectful to them.— S Marshall  T/C 12:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * When 62% support, 34% oppose, 4% neutral on such a wide-input RFC (444 participants) can't change something which has far less consensus, and has not gone through such a process, the process is defective. This whole idea of the status quo getting that deeply entrenched by the process is defective.  Maybe it's time for wp:IAR, especially since the invented process that blocked it isn't a rule, and there is no rule about leaving out unconsensused material until it can be decided.


 * How bout we completely erase the first sentence and then put back in the one that develops the most support? (and that dosn't mean requiring a super-duper--majority to do that) In the meantime the rest of wp:ver fully covers the provision of the policy. North8000 (talk) 12:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A coup? Joy! Doc   talk  12:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm disrespecting no one. The last RfC was a shambles and gave the closer's the easy option to arrive at no consensus. I'm offering you advice. Take it or leave it. Personally I don't think that you are being creative enough in your approach, not about the proposed wording which you are all so fixated on, but on the practical approach to getting it community approved. My guess is you will still be here next Christmas because you are so determined that the words matter - they don't. Getting the community to support any change is where you are failing. I have some ideas but since you, as self-appointed spokesman don't want to know - good luck.  Leaky  Caldron  12:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, you might call it a coup, but maybe not. The whole rest of the world runs on voting. Imagine a country where there's an election and a person then "decides" that the 33% won over the 62%; would you call implementing the actual results a coup? North8000 (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What's the plan?" A better question..."What's the problem?" As I see it (and I'm more than prepared to be educated otherwise), a coterie of like-minded editors DECLARES there's a policy language problem and then goes about the business of considering policy language change. From these deliberations emerge proposed "compromise" language which is greeted by considerable community disdain.
 * How 'bout, instead, education rather than dictum? If the current policy language has stood in such good and functional stead for such a considerable length of time, it is only logical that a strong case must be made that the existing language is HIGHLY problematical. Examples of this alleged "problem" should be both demonstrable and prolific. I haven't seen that. Instead (as is my recall of this lengthy debate which certainly may be in error) I see several rather arcane alleged examples extracted from the ENTIRE Wikipedia effort and held up as symptomatic of some systemic problem. I'm reminded rather quickly of the old adage, "It's the exception that proves the rule." This appears to be, IMHO, what the alleged "problem" represents...but I'm fully prepared to be convinced otherwise.
 * If there's a "plan" to be followed here, go back to step ONE. "What's the Problem"?...and make that case both succinct and irrefutable. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * An immense number of examples were provided during the last 12 months. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * North, I know you have provided lots of examples over the last 12 months - but they are now buried in the archives where it is hard to find them. Since there are a lot of new people involved in the conversation... It would be helpful to post these examples again. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * JakeInJoisey, we can't keep going back to step one every time a new person joins the discussion. Given the sheer numbers of people involved it's ludicrous to do that.  Please just deal with the fact that a landslide majority of editors want change, and this means change is coming.— S Marshall  T/C 14:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...we can't keep going back to step one every time a new person joins the discussion.
 * Upwards of 400+ "new persons" joined this discussion via this RfC. I was one of those. My suspicion is that "going back to step one" will be a first for the vast majority of these respondees. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this short sequence involving the 3 main proponents for change sums up this sorry saga. There is no plan because they cannot agree on an approach, even to satisfy the simple question; "What's the problem?" You've all spent too long on this and are loosing objectivity. Take a short break. Leaky Caldron  14:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol, welcome to the debate, we can tell you're new. :)  Disagreement about the approach and lack of plan are the main things that characterise this debate throughout.  Blueboar and North8000 and I are pretty far from allies in this and we've spent much of the past fourteen months arguing with each other (particularly Blueboar, who spent about eleven months opposing change at all).— S Marshall  T/C 15:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaky... if you are including me as one of the "3 main proponents for change", you misunderstand my position or why I am involved here. I am not trying to advocate for change. I am trying to facilitate compromise and consensus building. I understand that a lot of people think the policy should stay as it is (in fact I still lean towards that view myself). However, I also understand that a significant number of people (a majority in fact) disagree, and think the policy does need to change. I take that disagreement seriously, and don't dismiss it out of hand. So I have been trying to find a compromise that will satisfy both viewpoints and gain consensus. Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Leaky has an excellent mind, so could very well assist us all in producing something really workable and acceptable. Very often a new pair of eyes can see things which we've become "stale" on. The idea of getting all the examples of misunderstanding ("creative" or otherwise) into one place is very good. Getting a new RfC will need, as Leaky says (and I;m sure many others agree) a tweaked approach. We mustn't view the last one as a "failure" - it demonstrated very clearly that many people aren't happy with what we currently have. It's (horrible bloody "personal development" phrase) an "alternative outcome". An opportunity to regroup, learn what we can from it, and take that better insight forwards. All we have here is a tactical retreat for checking the weapons and armour, if you will, and a better understanding of what tactics and strategies are likely to give us better results. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

From the trailer, "In the fall of 2011 Wikipedia editors put forth a proposal and encountered an unnatural disaster that had never before occurred in recorded history." For a moment there was a break in the clouds, "Skip, we're gonna make it." But then the clouds closed up, "She's not gonna let us out." I think one should consider the limits of reason when trying to influence people. There may be an underlying force that will make the goal impossible to achieve by rational arguments. I hope that's not the case, but it's something to consider. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that Leaky made some excellent points. As for copyediting Blueboar's wording to make it shorter, with the goal of gaining the support of editors who argued it was CREEP, that's not gonna work (they'll still call it CREEP, and complain that it's also superficial). Trying to shave off a few more !votes by submitting a slightly shorter version of the same thing as before is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion
I am thinking we need a follow up RfC to answer a three part basic question: We need to see where the community stands on this basic question... It may be that the community will be evenly divided on this basic question... and if this is the case, I have no idea how to move forward... but if there is a consensus, then we will know what direction to go in. Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * a) Should the words "Verifiability, not truth" be retained in the first sentence b) retained, but moved to a later sentence or c) cut entirely?


 * To start with you need one simple question, without any options. It needs to be along the lines of "does the community support the need to modify the wording of the policy WP:V in relation to Verifiability not truth". Don't ask why, don't ask for options, just find out if a change of any kind has support at all before starting on the hard bit. Leaky  Caldron  14:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a wp:strawpoll and people who disagree with the result would oppose its validity on the basis of being a strawpoll. Yoenit (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am thinking we need a follow up RfC to answer a three part basic question:...
 * Your suggested RfC presumes the existence of a problem that warrants consideration. You Proponents for change need to re-make that case. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar outlined the concerns with the current wording at, Hans Adler linked above to a set of five examples of VnT being misapplied, which can be found here. What more do you need? Yoenit (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They always need more, Yoenit. We ran about a dozen polls around this subject here. We also ran one that explicitly asked whether there was a problem, although the archives are so voluminous that I can't find it.  There was no consensus that there was a problem, and also, no consensus in favour of the status quo.  In fact, the main thing you can learn from reading the polls and RFCs that preceded this most recent one is that among those who are active on this page, there is fundamentally no consensus on this issue at all.  (Much of the first six months was spent trying to pretend that North8000 and I represented a fringe view from a tiny minority and we weren't worth listening to—a position that wasn't finally squashed until the big RFC got a 62% support rate—so the earlier polls are generally less useful to read anyway.)— S Marshall  T/C 15:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You forgot to mention the bit where someone kept moving all discussions about the first sentence to a dedicated new subpage that nobody was watching, so that in the unlikely event that they wouldn't die down there and it would come to a result, whoever wouldn't like would be able to claim it invalid because they watched only this page and it didn't happen here. That's how many discussions got forked between two archive pages. Hans Adler 15:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar outlined the concerns with the current wording at ,...
 * Inre, I needn't go beyond the first declaration to find, IMHO, a highly debatable assertion...
 * Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that any material that appears in a source must be included...simply because it is verifiable.
 * I STRONGLY disagree with that assertion and have not found such "misconstruction" to be evidenced in ANY of the articles about which I'm editorially familiar.
 * However, and in support of that supposition, I would appreciate from any of its proponents an example from an existing article where current content, after sufficient editorial consideration, is supported by consensus in its inclusion solely on the basis of the above stated "concern". Surely they must be legion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With four million-odd articles, with long histories, it's gonna be hard. But I put a "live example" of where the concept of "It's published, it can go in" occurred.  In that instance, it was unsuccessful - but each instance of it happening uses up the time and patience of other editors, while they attempt to overcome the misconception. It's more the editor-patience-erosion than the final inclusion that's an ongoing problem.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Pasting in from above for convenience: See here for a current example of the frustration caused by the "I don't care if it's not true, I can show you where it's published!" interpretation of The Problem Phrase :P Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Quote from Ealdgyth: ''"I'm STILL fighting this outdated and disproven theory ... and periodically I STILL have to deal with people pushing it. No modern historian OR competent genealogist subscribes to the idea that Gundred was the daughter of William the Conqueror - but some folks WANT it to be true so they insist that there IS a controversy (there isn't) so that it MUST be given due weight in the freaking article. Once more I had to AGAIN dig though books and try to demolish some idiotic reprinting of a theory long since disproven in historical thought. If I tried to say that Gundred was William OR Matilda's daughter in any historical scholarly work based on the International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne - I'd be laughed out of the profession - but some folks think Wikipedia requires our articles to respect that society as much as serious historians. ARGH!''
 * OK, let's take a look at your purported example. Here's the current content after some deliberation in the referenced article talk (bold emphasis mine)...
 * Gundred or Gundreda (Latin: Gundrada) (Normandy?, ca. 1048/1063 – Castle Acre, Norfolk, 27 May 1085)[1] was probably born in Flanders, sister of Gerbod the Fleming, 1st Earl of Chester. She is explicitly so called by Orderic Vitalis, as well as the chronicle of Hyde Abbey. Late Lewes Priory tradition made her daughter of William the Conqueror by his spouse Matilda of Flanders[2], but this is not accepted by modern historians.
 * The proponent of the now-incorporated and qualified content did not argue (that I can see) that the disputed content was appropriate simply because it was WP:V published but rather that "I have added these sources while still stating that the parentage is debated. I believe this to be the most neutral viewpoint." The current content suggests that his position prevailed...an assumed consensus determination that I'm inclined to agree with. I just don't see how your proffered example would have been impacted by the proposed change under discussion. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) This is an unreasonable demand because it is unrelated to why "verifiability, not truth" is problematic. It is not problematic primarily because it causes articles to be permanently in a bad state. I think such cases exist, but it's hard to tell how many there are because whenever such a case is widely discussed the problem is fixed. These are the real problems:
 * "Verifiability in spite of falsity" is a prescriptive principle that is not in accordance with what happens when a discussion gets escalated. The purpose of our policies and guidelines is to settle problems without such escalation, and this only works if they are reasonably accurate in predicting the ultimate outcome. Which this one is not.
 * Verifiability in spite of falsity can cause a lot of disruption when an editor relies on it in an inappropriate situation.
 * Verifiability in spite of falsity can delay the removal of false claims from article space by days, sometimes weeks, as happened in the Sam Blacketer controversy case.
 * You have simply changed the rules of the game to those of a different game that you think you may win. Hans Adler 16:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Blueboar, your fist thing here: ... is a damned good start. I think many people might go for option B. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * a) Should the words "Verifiability, not truth" be retained in the first sentence b) retained, but moved to a later sentence or c) cut entirely?

Note: that quote from Ealdgyth, above, is in a section called "When people ask why experts get driven off Wikipedia...". Point made? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 16:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What point? No one in that debate referred to this policy, at all. And the material was excluded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. Another moving of the goalposts. User talk:Malleus Fatuorum doesn't have to explicitly refer to WP:V. The frustration of having to combat 'verifiable' false stuff is there right from the start, and Malleus obviously understood the relation to VNT quite well when he referred to the "'verifiable untruth' brigade". Hans Adler 17:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What goalposts? Unless Malleus is Pesky, then Malleus did not say that.  Moreover, as we speak, Ealdgeth denies that this policy played a part. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry - not expressing myself at my best today (I blame the morphine ....). The "point" was that people - serious experts included - get fed up with others arguing for the inclusion of material just because they can point to where it was published.  If we don;t want to infuriate our experts, we do need to ensure that people don;t have any kind of belief that once something's been published, it can be included whether it's true or not. 'Scuse the morphine etc., bear with me ...  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear about your morphinism. I don't think it's fair to blame it here. What you said was clear enough for any non-IDHT situation. Hans Adler 17:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd do your position a considerable service by placing your WP:NPA broad-brush back into its pandoras box. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that Malleus, IMHO, is resisting incorporation of an historical fact (albeit an inaccurate determination?) to the detriment of the article itself. I believe inclusion of the now-assumedly discredited genealogic data is both noteworthy and informative. Where's the beef here and how does it argue for a major WP:V policy revision? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Other than it taking place on Malleus talk page about a previous discussion on an article talk page, I don't see any comments by Malleus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you often take part in discussions without having the faintest idea what you're talking about Jake? Or did you you just see "Malleus" and thought you would take advantage of an opportunity to demand your pound of flesh? Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you often take part in discussions without having the faintest idea what you're talking about Jake?
 * Have I erred in some way? Please clarify.
 * ...an opportunity to demand your pound of flesh?
 * More generalities. Please clarify. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not done or said what you have attributed to me. How hard is that to understand? Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

See here for more chat on the problem. (Morphine is better than intense pain, but it doesn't make for real clarity of thought or expression! What I really need is for my neurosurgery op to be done ASAP!) And please, please note: there is no major policy revision! Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 17:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC) @AlanScottWalker - "as we speak"? Where? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 17:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here: User talk:Malleus Fatuorum Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as we speak, Ealdgyth says: "See User talk:Adam Bishop and First Crusade for one recent episode. Another is Talk:Saladin and the article history as well as Adam's page - where you can see that someone wants to insert Saladin the Turk based on 16th century sources. William II of England gets some occasional oddnesses. Check out the GA review of Talk:Feologild/GA1 where I'm urged to include information not in secondary sources just to pad out the article - even though no recent secondary source mentions the information. It's not a common occurance in my area of work, but it happens. Gundred just happens to be a particular flash point - that information has been debunked and debunked and debunked but yet it keeps coming back. Another spot would be Guy Fawkes - where the whole issue of the mask in V for Vendetta is a perennial problem. It's not that these things can't be beaten back... it's that every single time it takes up an hour or so of my time with Gundred - folks are never satisfied with "see talk page earlier for explanation" - you have to repeat and repeat and it gets very old."  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 17:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Not in secondary sources just to pad the article" is a violation of this policy, and weighting sources old versus new, or debunked, crosses several policies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly there are multiple issues here - but people wanting to include untrue and / or debunked stuff just because they have a source is part of it. (And I'm still somewhat curious to know where Ealdgyth "denies that this policy played a part", per your comment above. Not here, not on her talk, and not, as far as I can see, in IRC either.) Perhaps you were mistaken, and it was someone else? Sorry - missed you reply above.  15th December, I think that was.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 18:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right it was on the 15th, sorry about the ambiguous time reference, it was to our conversation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs - I'm rapidly losing track of stuff! Ealdgyth is OK with me porting stuff over from her talk, so we may consider this one:

"And for those stalking over here - yes, it is indeed directly related to the "verifiablity not truth" issue - the crux of the problem is that in the past there were genealogical works which stated that Gundred was the daughter of either William the Conqueror and Matilda or just the daughter of Matilda. This was disproven by a number of historians, starting with E. A. Freeman and extending to C. T. Clay. However, reprints of various works as well as not-quite-competent genealogists as well as a few genealogical descent societies still state that Gundred was the daughter of William and/or Matilda. This is NOT a view shared by most professional genealogists nor of any historian of the period. So any statement which tries to put the discredited theory on par with the actual descent is pushing a fringe theory - and is implicitly relying on the "V not T" idea. Note the statement page on Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey, where the IP states "Exactly how does a source become "out of date"? Surely, older sources in this case would be more reliable as they were closer to the actual life and times of Gundred." - this is such a mockery of historical thought that it's not even funny." Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 18:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But even if this policy did not exist, the weighing of sources would still have to be done. And editors would still be making odd claims about the weighting, which would have to be countered by other editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Informal RfC on Discussion tag
Is there going to be another silly edit war over the tag once the page gets unprotected? I'd like to get back to boldy editing... :P. Crazynast 00:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is in response to the edit war that sparked the full protection of the wrong version (an unrelated edit). a preemptive place to point drive by editors that see the RfC has ended on AnI or the like and boldly feel the tag should be removed.(I didn't honestly expect the vested contributors to this page to disagree with keeping it).Crazynast 14:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support keeping the tag, although there is no formal RFC at this time the sentence is still most certainly under discussion Crazynast 00:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The tag is clearly appropriate and needed. A sort of middle of the road compromise with the folks who do not want a version favored by one side of the discussion sitting in there during the discussion. I think that trying to remove it would re-ignite a larger battle over which version of the text sits in there during the discussions. North8000 (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Quit making threats, this policy has been held hostage long enough. Something is either policy or it's not, tagging is inappropriate. Not that I expect any of those on your 'side' to understand or comply with that.  You've made war here, and we all suffer for that.  Nice.  Dreadstar  ☥   02:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * North8000 is correct, one of the problems (possibly months lost) we have had with building consensus was the incorrect presumption that working to maintain a state of non-concensus was acceptable (see WP:CONSENSUS). The discussion tag seems to bring home the idea of WP:CONSENSUS, and it also encourages talking on the discussion page before making edits to WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (@Dreadstar) this, from an editor that was half way to crossing a bright line? I didn't know a policy could be held hostage!?  (If anything the hostage is consensus building which is being restrained by a minority that would retain the status quo at any cost.)Crazynast 05:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Several times this editor has made the clear threat to "re-ignite a larger battle", that's what I'm talking about. If you can't find consensus for the change, then that's not holding something hostage - threats of "re-igniting" larger battles are.  Dreadstar  ☥   17:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the intention with chiming in with the founder's view here? If he want's to comment he knows how to. There's no need for you to push his point of view for him. Leaky  Caldron  18:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to Argumentum ad Jimbonem simply pointing out that I'm not the only editor that see's a problem with the process on this page.(and if you have a problem with discussions off this talkpage, I brought up the Wrong Version (after the FP) here, and a certian other editor had to run to mommy without discussing it on the talkpage first. Just saying...) Crazynast 22:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue has been discussed ad nauseum, so "running to mommy" (aka following WP:DR) was the right thing to do. You certainy know how to win friends and influence people.  Between the above comment and this sneaky edit If this is how you edit, I think you bear watching.  Dreadstar  ☥   01:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Crazynas shivers in boots I think the policy page bears watching too, which is why I'm surprised that out of 9 edits in almost as many hours, no one thought to revert me (granted for six of them it was protected, again how many revertsdid you see me make that day?[hint zero]) I didn't realize full protection prevented editors from viewing the page either. In any case that wasn't even directed at you but Leaky caldron(who just might have a better sense of humor then you :)).
 * I didn't realize that WP:Ad nauseam trumped WP:Bold and since I initiated theD as well in a talkpage section referenced in the edit summary, I feel I did my part publicizing my boldness. :)I appreciate your candor, fortunately however I'm not here to win friends or influence people (although it would be a nice perk) but rather donate my time to the largest collection of human knowledge that has ever been assembled. I'll let my edit history speak for itself. Cheers. Crazynast 17:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But one would have thought you would have realized the unbelievable contentiousness of this issue, seen the hostile comments and edit-warring over that particular wording, and not tried to act in such a precipitious manner. A manner which caused problems, such as the admin who reversed your action being taken to AN/I.  Indeed, I agree with Leaky Cauldron's comments below, your edit was disruptive, not BRD.  Dreadstar  ☥   18:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unbelievable (not believable for those who have trouble with English (which verifiability and truth being stated as antyonyms in the lead indicates :))) is right... (over semantics of all things) it took you to convince me of the contentiousness of this issue, anyhow So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish ( Will someone to leave me a note about any new RfC as I'm taking this page off my watchlst there are going to be required TP messages every editor anyhow for any new proposal so no need ). Crazynast 00:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "under discussion" tag is helpful or needed. That fact that this policy has a clearly marked discussion page already proclaims that there is dicussion, does it not? Cla68 (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All policy pages have discussion pages, that is a truism. This particular tag encourages the building of consensus, which currently does not exist.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose: unless there is a specific proposal for changing the policy under RfC, I don't see how the tag serves any useful purpose -- and would appear to be a self-fulfilling (and self-perpetuating) prophesy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Underdiscussion does not mean Under a Request for Comment otherwise it would say something along the lines of "This article/section is under a Request for Comment. Blah blah blah..." ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  03:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Would would need an rfc to see if there is a consensus for removing the tag. :-) North8000 (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. After 279:149 for a change and with discussion ongoing (RfC or not), it's hard to deny that this sentence is under discussion. It's mind-boggling how anyone can think they can get away with denying it anyway. Hans Adler 05:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. It is undeniably under discussion. However, I think any changes once the prot. expires will be regarded as disruptive. This isn't an article about a minor soap star celebrity. It is important that the policy page is not subject to edit warring and those seeking to change it will get more support if it is left alone until the new consensus is reached. Leaky  Caldron  10:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My somewhat snarky comment above aside. I can point you to numerous other policy pages that are edited in the exact way I attempted (to the lead no less) without being regarded as disruptive.  Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time.  You're not suggesting that what I did would seriously been labeled disruptive if (S Marshall or another editor) had reverted prior to the FP?  I personally feel that consensus to change has been reached, and I have no problems presenting various alternative formulations to the wider community for consideration.  The interesting thing about 3RR (and the like) is it encourages innovation (not BRAINS!), I feel that if people had a little faith and modified and attempted to incorporate all points of view on the page it would be a much quicker resolution.    Crazynast 14:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Crazy. I would call your first edit (which I support) predictably disruptive. There was no consensus to change it in the way set out in the closed, 3 month RFC with 9 months work behind it. If you seriously think that your own attempt was immediately, without discussion, going to achieve at a stroke what a 3 month RFA failed to achieve, you are either arrogant or deluded. You lit the fuse of an inevitable edit war. This is a core policy page, not an article on a 3rd rate Australian celebrity soap star where people bicker about her dress size. Policy needs to be stable to prevent clever sophistry by editors keen to seize any opportunity to exploit potential loop holes that ad-hoc change might create. (and your Zombie and AGF jibes are wide of the mark). Leaky  Caldron  18:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please re-examine the history... the edit war was (before and after my boldness) about the tag.(to be precise I got reverted once for each of my edits and another editor reverted to my version once and got reverted back). Respectfully. (Also I hope WP:V doesn't make sysop, it would be death to the project ;))  Crazynast 22:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

'''
 * Support retaining the tag; the matter clearly is under discussion, and several hundred editors are verifiably unhappy with the passage as it stands. -- J N  466  11:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it's unnecessary to have this discussion because nobody is trying to remove the tag at the moment. If someone tries it later, we can shout them down then, but I don't see why we need to pre-empt it.— S Marshall  T/C 11:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Errr, there's been a little toing and froing so far with it. I support its retention for the time being. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Errr, shout them down? Is this what collaboration means on Wikipedia today? Scolaire (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the words have been getting words scrambled A proposed change would be to remove it. It's clear that this sentence is under discussion.  An intense large discussion, focused on that particular sentence.   It's also a peacemaker on the topic of which version stays in there during the discussion. "Under discussion"  means "under discussion"     North8000 (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support retaining the tag ... also Support keeping the text at the version that is being discussed. At the moment we are discussing the "long standing" version that so many of us find problematic - the version that existed prior to the RFC. So that is the text that should remain on the page. That text may very well change at some point in the future, but it should not yet. That said... it is quite possible for us to agree on a change to one part of the sentence, while continuing discussion about other parts. Implementing a change does not necessarily mean the tag should be removed. Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support retaining the tag and the version that is being discussed. Discussions on this have been going on for many months, boldly editing the bits under discussion is, I think, a bad idea. Better to boldy discuss a new RFC. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal, Support Retention It's clear that this sentence is under discussion.  An intense large discussion, focused on that particular sentence.   It's also a peacemaker on the topic of which version stays in there during the discussion. "Under discussion"  means "under discussion"     North8000 (talk)
 * Oppose retention of tag. The RfC was closed. The result was "no consensus". Obviously the first sentence is still "under discussion", but that discussion is likely to go on indefinitely under current circumstances. That means that the tag, if left, is going to be left there indefinitely. That is a crazy state of affairs for one of the most important policies on Wikipedia! How can any user have any faith in the verifiability policy if there is an "under discussion" tag always after the first sentence? Scolaire (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly as crazy as when a wording stays in the policy indefinitely after roughly 64% of a huge number of editors supported one specific way of changing it. Hans Adler 19:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And the quickest way to end the discussion (and remove the tag) is to work towards finding a wording that can gain consensus. Blueboar (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, it's all the fault of that annoying one third of a huge number of editors! Is that really your answer? Scolaire (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * One could say the third or so that were adamantly against the change are annoying. 1/3 is also not an insignificant number given the size of the RfC. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  01:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Scolaire... If your last comment was directed at me... please don't assume things that are not said. It's no one's "fault" that we don't have a consensus and this continues to be a topic of discussion. It is simply a fact that we don't have consensus and that this needs to be discussed. The onus is on everyone (from both sides) to work together towards finding language that can gain consensus... if we all do this, then there will be nothing more to discuss and we can remove the tag.  People on both sides need to be willing to compromise.  It really is that simple (note that I said simple... I did not say easy). Blueboar (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was directed at you both, I suppose, but more so at Hans Adler with his "hardly as crazy" response. Basically I'm saying that "if everybody would only be reasonable..." is not any sort of an answer to my point that you, I, Hans and evertbody else knows this "discussion" is not going to be brought to an end any time in the foreseeable future. In such a situation, having the first sentence tagged indefinitely is like saying "forget this policy, nobody agrees on it so there's no point in quoting it, or even reading the rest of it." Scolaire (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But it's true: the current version enjoys relatively little support and has been disputed since November 2010. The way to get the tag removed is to come up with an acceptable alternative wording.  It won't be removed just because some editors don't like having a tag there.— S Marshall  T/C 12:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha, so now we have a discussion about the discussion as well. Count Iblis (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Examples for discussion
I think we are back at the stage where discussing some examples would be helpful... I know we cited examples before, but it would be useful to examine them (again) in more depth... to see where, and more importantly why we agree or disagree when it comes actual usage. I would like to start by focusing on situations where VnT was successfully cited ... and break them down into the following categories for further discussion. Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The standard in your headings is too strict. When "verifiability, not truth" is abused to argue for inclusion, the information is often ultimately removed, but only after a huge brawl. And the words "correctly"/"incorrectly" must be read in a loose way because the abuse often consists in using "verifiability, not truth" to deny someone a necessary NPOV and accuracy weighting discussion that would ultimately have come to the same result, but with more effort by those who use the phrase and with less bullying victims. Hans Adler 08:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What bullying victims? If that's true, it can be verified. It's not enough to say it's true - we need evidence. In this case, with diffs. Doc   talk  08:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please have patience. I don't have the time at all, yet I have started to collect evidence at User:Hans Adler/Verifiability, not truth. By pure accident the first example is of an SPA who was blocked for making a legal threat after Sandstein infuriated him by repeated insistence that a highly reliable primary source is not enough to refute an inference from a New York Times article. Hans Adler 10:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a slightly weary feeling about this, because we know from experience what happens when we post the evidence. What happens is that the doubters then look at each one and find a reason why they think the problem isn't really to do with VNT at all, but to do with a specific editor or article.  In other words, I go and do a lot of work hunting for diffs, and then the doubters sit around quibbling them. It all generates a huge volume of totally unproductive discussion.  But I shall assume good faith and hope that if I at least supply pointers, people might actually read around the subject enough to build an informed opinion and be willing to change their minds based on it. Here are some places where you can start your search for diffs.  User talk:Hans Adler/Archive 5. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 84.  Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy.  Talk:Sentence spacing/Archive 4.  Talk:Jose Baez (lawyer).  Talk:Conspiracy theory/Archive 15.— S Marshall  T/C 10:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you know that Chou Kung, the inventor of the compass, had a swivel wrist on which he could turn his hand completely around? I didn't either - until I saw it referenced in an old copy of Ripley's. So it's verifiable - does that automatically make it a) true and/or b) fit for inclusion? Maybe for a humorous and factual note on Ripley's, but not on the article for Compass. Common sense. Doc   talk  10:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a point I've made repeatedly in the discussions here over the past year, and not just me: it was in Blueboar's compromise, the idea that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion and it certainly doesn't guarantee inclusion in any particular article.— S Marshall T/C 10:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - no argument whatsoever there. My Dad's got a set of encyclopedias from the turn of the century, and there is some positively dead-wrong racist stuff in those volumes - about major historical events and people! Only a consensus of reliable sources (abiding by NOR, NPOV and the like) guarantees should guarantee inclusion. Doc   talk  10:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Sam Blacketer case, there was a consensus of reliable sources. Only our server logs and collective memory contradicted it. In cases such as Santa Claus, there is also an apparent consensus of reliable sources (that he exists, lives at the North Pole etc.), and we have users such as Jack Sebastian who insist that we do not discount the vast majority of sources as obviously not meant seriously, as that would be original research. Hans Adler 11:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I fully expect that there will be people who will quibble about the examples... in some ways, that is the entire point of this exercise... the idea is not to re-argue the examples, but to understand where each side is coming from, and figure out where we agree and disagree. This is why I added "(in your opinion)".  This exercise is intentionally subjective.  If we respect each other's opinions, and expect that others will disagree with ours, the conversation should be instructive.
 * The point is not to convince others that "your view" is correct... but to explain your view and understand other views. We already know that there will be disagreements here... The point is to for everyone to better understand why we disagree... and what specifically we disagree on.  Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

c) examples where VnT was (in your opinion) incorrectly misused/abused to omit information (and the information was omitted)
Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations): The claim here is that Save our Sailors group was solely responsible for the ultimate success of Sailor Moon. This is known to not be true, but due to lack of sources, even primary or non-indendendant secondary sources, the info that would state this is not the case cannot be found and because SOS takes credit for it, we cannot find other RSes to disprove it (even though its well known in the community, it cannot be verified by traditional RSes). Thereby our policy actually and puts WP:UNDUE weight on them because of their own self promotion. No one claims they didn't have a role, its just not the sole or even primary reason. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... it sounds like this was a situation where VnT was used as an (unsuccessful) argument to keep the information (not as a reason to omit it)... am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * VnT was essentially used to not include info that said SOS was not (as) instrumental as they claim to be. The info could not be sourced from reliable sources, so VnT said we go with the 1 known-to-be-biased RS of SOS which was picked up by media because of a very well done PR campaign. IE, it was V up against NPOV. If you think its more of the latter section, I can move it. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

d) examples where VnT was (in your opinion) incorrectly misused/abused to include information (and the information was included).

 * Sam Blacketer controversy / Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Blacketer_controversy. We had respected admins arguing that, in an article with absolutely critical BLP content,
 * "The article is sourced to multiple reliable sources (whether they got their facts right is not our concern, remember WP:V: Verifiability, not truth) establishing notability."
 * "The sources have not reached accurate conclusions, and while I am normally one to push the Verifiability, not truth thing, when BLP is involved, it's no good."
 * "Yes, the coverage may be wrong, but WP:V's instruction to aim for "verifiability, not truth" does not contain an exception for issues about which we assume to know the (sadly unverifiable) truth, such as Wikipedia-related issues."
 * "What is astonishing to me is how many people are willing to simply ignore both WP:V and WP:OR, simply because the original research comes from Wikipedia itself."
 * "But we aren't about truth, we are about verification. Those are the standards we apply to other articles, those must be the standards we apply here."
 * All of that was about including material that we all knew was wrong. And it was included. It showed how widespread that faulty understanding of VnT is in the community: it's not just a question of it being used as a weapon in disputes, it is a matter of how it influences experienced Wikipedians' regular editing behaviour. VnT should never be a suicide pact, especially not when we're playing with living people's reputations. -- J N  466  10:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See the WT:V archives for plenty of examples. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that this section does a great job of demonstrating why no change is needed. So far, the only example being cited is from two years ago!  I'm not going to even bother reading the example because it's so old.  Yet, the unwarranted promotion of fringe theories is something that happens on a daily basis on Wikipedia.  In fact, the problem is so great that we have a Fringe theory noticeboard dedicated to it and we're still swamped .  I don't see why we should risk turning the encyclopedia unside down for a non-problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You should read it, as the article was deleted, so the information is, in fact, not included on Wikipedia and there were lots of other policy discussions involved, that were more prominent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, thanks. Even assuming that this is an actual example of someone knowling inserting verifiable but false information into an article, the fact that it's so old highlights that there is no real problem to solve.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get the reference to fringe theories. After all, for an editor wishing to push a fringe theory, "verifiability, not truth" works handsomely. All you need is a published source stating the theory, because that makes it verifiable, and since it doesn't matter whether editors think it's true, it meets the threshold for inclusion. -- J N  466  07:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I and others have provided an immense amount of those examples over the last 12 months. These led to the proposal which passed but has been blocked by a posse's reinventing the rules. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? Evertime I ask for a real example of someone knowingly wanting to include false but verifiable information, I get silence.  If you've got one, why not tell me and I'll take a look at it?  AFAIK, we're still at zero.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What posse?! What passed and what blocked? How can you seriously blame the minority opposing stance's very existence for there being no clear consensus for the RfC to pass? Off-wiki canvassing, maybe? Highly doubtful. Doc   talk  13:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the announcements of the RfC elsewhere, was it advertised as removing the first sentence, including VnT, which implied that it was being removed from policy? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea. Would that explain the minority oppose numbers? If an editor blindly read any RfC notice and was solely influenced by it without reading the actual RfC, that sort of thing was probably considered by the closing admins. Doc   talk  13:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The posse was the reversion of the first and actual close on invented technicalities. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which first and actual close? You mean this one? Doc   talk  14:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * He means the close by user:SarekOfVulcan, which was reverted because he was "involved" by the highly involved user:Slimvirgin. Don't tell me you completely missed this fine example of kafkaesque wikipolitics Yoenit (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I remember that, alright. Since it wasn't really any sort of actual official close, why even bring it up? The first and actual close is what the three neutral admins were asked to perform well after that, I believe. Just toss those admins' verdicts aside in lieu of... what? Three more that can guarantee success? Cool. Doc   talk  14:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting little fact: Searching the archives of Fringe theories/Noticeboard yields a grand total of 28 results for "truth" of which only 2 refer to VnT. Yoenit (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Ignore this, each page is reported only once, no matter how many times truth is mentioned on the page. Yoenit (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * At User:Hans Adler/Verifiability, not truth I discuss the following examples:
 * Selphyl (shows how to use VNT to avoid proper discussion with an SPA and to get the SPA blocked)
 * Ghosts as pseudoscience (example of massive disruption encouraged in part by this principle)
 * Sam Blacketer controversy (Wikipedia lying about itself, just to follow the rules to the letter)
 * Santa Claus (extreme silliness)
 * 1986 Hvalur sinkings (successful political POV pushing) Hans Adler 14:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

VnT is actually the way WP is supposed to work. But it would be great if we could actually use our own judgment about what is true or not true. The controversies would lead to ArbCom being able to make content decisions, and the POV pushers would rampage up and down Wikipedia. But in some respects, we could all sigh with relief, and do our thing. This is my response from reading how VnT was purportedly misused above, such as "The article is sourced to multiple reliable sources (whether they got their facts right is not our concern, remember WP:V: Verifiability, not truth) establishing notability." And "The article is sourced to multiple reliable sources (whether they got their facts right is not our concern, remember WP:V: Verifiability, not truth) establishing notability." These are instances in which VnT was used in an entirely correct way, just the way it's set up to be used. I'm currently involved in a dispute at Abortion, where we all know that the sources are wrong. But they are indisputably excellent sources. Now, do you really want my common sense? Or do you want VnT? Changing VnT is an absolutely fundamental change to WP, as VnT is the basis for (or essential to) every other policy including NPOV (since NPOV is accurate representation of sources). If those are the best examples of "abuse" of VnT, then we definitely need it to stay, it's a clear and correct representation of basic policy. It seems as if with Adler's examples (or the ones I read), other policies modified VnT, such as WEIGHT, as it's supposed to be. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 20:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This discussion at RSN is a good example. There are numerous reliable sources that verify that one city is the largest in a region, but this information conflicts with the census data. So, which is correct, what is verifiable per numerous reliable sources or what we can pretty much say is eminently true (the census data)? Silver  seren C 22:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I briefly read through the first half of the discussion, and what I'm looking for is someone knowingly calling for false but verifiable content in an article. That doesn't seem to be the case here.  And I don't think it's worth risking turning the encyclopedia upside down over some obscure town that most people have never heard of.  But I'd like ask a new question.  Let's say this policy is changed.  How would that change the outcome of that discussion?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this discussion so black and white?
I'm not the most active Wikipedia editor, and I haven't been able to read through absolutely all this discussion because there's so much of it, (so forgive me if this has been covered in the past) but it seems to me that the discussion is too black and white; it seems that everybody is saying we either need "not truth" in the first sentence or nothing about truth at all. Wouldn't it be better phrasing to say "Verifiability before truth", or "over truth" or something- emphasising that yes, truth (actual truth as opposed to a vehement pov-pusher's "Truth") is important but verifiability is more so? MorganaFiolett (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a number of editors (a minority, but a signifigant one) who feel that the phrase VnT cannot be anything but that phrase exactly. Numerous attempts to find compromise wording that includes Verifiability, truth and often even not have been brought up and rejected. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They're erm assertive too. Crazynast 02:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Leave VnT and insert a footnote
Perhaps it's been suggested already. But why not just put in a footnote on VnT which explains all the angels of interpreting it in sufficient detail that misinterpretation is impossible (for someone who comprehends the note)? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 23:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean angles :) although for some reason the thought of angels of truth defending policy is hilarious to me right now.... I may be wrong and perhaps it's bad to say it, but an editor that reads footnotes is going to understand the spirit of this policy without them.IMHO Crazynast 02:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL, Yes, angles.  Perhaps I should have made it more clear how it would work: if anyone tries to use VnT to POV push, then they get directed to the footnote.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  03:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to basics
OK... let's re-focus. The recent RFC was designed to gauge how the community felt about a specific proposal, made as an attempt to resolve certain specific concerns and counter concerns about the first sentence (and specifically the phrase "Verifiability, not truth"). There was no consensus as to that proposal... however, the underlying concerns remain and still need to be resolved. I repeat them now:


 * 1) Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that any material that appears in a source must be included...simply because it is verifiable.  This misinterpretation is in conflict with several other policy and guideline statements (especially the WP:Undue weight section of  WP:NPOV).
 * 2) Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that we may not discuss the possibility that verifiable information is untrue (i.e., that the source may contain an error).  Specifically, this reading says that editors need not discuss the exclusion of material on the grounds of being not true, in the same way that editors need not discuss the inclusion of material on the grounds of being true.  That is, we must accept what a published source says simply because it is published, even if we have reason to believe that the material is inaccurate or that the source is less than reliable.
 * Counter concern: This was never the intent.  We often need to make judgment calls about the reliability of specific sources when it comes to specific information.  A source may be reliable for one statement, but unreliable for some other statement.  We also have to make judgment calls about the relative reliability of one source when compared to others.  As Jimbo Wales puts it, "We are not transcription monkeys."  We do want the information we present in Wikipedia to be accurate, as far as possible.  Further, as NPOV notes, we cannot omit significant viewpoints just because we disagree with them (or even because most sources disagree with them).  Sometimes we should discuss facts and opinions that may be untrue, because doing so gives the reader a complete picture of disagreement among the sources.
 * 1) Concern: Introducing the concept of "truth" in the lede is distracting and confusing, particularly for new editors.  The lede should focus purely on explaining what Wikipedia means by Verifiability without introducing secondary concepts.  To the extent that it is relevant for the policy to discuss the issue of truth/untruth, this belongs in the body of the policy.

Our goal, as we move forward, is to resolve these concerns and counter concerns. Let's keep that goal in mind. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My primary concern is clarity (I agree with the policy, the whole freaking tl:dr policy totally). I suppose that's mostly number 3 although I'm not to attached on how to do it (above for a couple options I tried. Crazynast 14:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Spot on, Blueboar! If we make it so abundantly clear that it can't be wikilawyered around, or "creatively misunderstood", that's going to be best.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree too with most of Blueboar's points. These issues underlie the TvV discussions. I don't agree with the jump Blueboar makes by saying using the word truth in the lead confuses new editors. As a new editor the verifiable not truth wording immediately made an impression on, me and made me aware of the importance of sources over perceived truths. Actually I wonder if we forget how lacking in understanding most new editors are and how a few simple words can impart a core meaning  that sticks in the mind. In my experience the real issue is those editors who want to manipulate  the policy and changing the wording won't make a bit of difference to them, but may make it much harder for new editors. And thanks Blueboar for the work you've done on this. My disagreement doesn't equal disrespect for what you've done. (olive (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Yes, absolutely. Now that we've been informed by the RFC, I think we can predict that the edit that will gain consensus will have the following characteristics:- (1) It'll open with a pithy way to be 100% clear that you can't add something that can't be sourced, even if what you want to add is true; (2) It'll be equally clear that despite the fact that all kinds of nonsense appears in print, the fact that some fool has printed some nonsense doesn't mean it gets equal time with the mainstream academic view; (3) It'll say that editors will need to make judgment calls about these principles and that these belong on the relevant talk page; and (4) It will not include the words "verifiability not truth" in the lede.  There are other things that I'd like to achieve with this edit (particularly if we can fix the word "threshold") but I think that in view of the RFC, those four are the magic ingredients that we need to distill into elegant language in order to reach a consensus version.— S Marshall  T/C 17:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if I agree with your prediction number 4... that seems to be a major sticking point when it comes to reaching consensus... most of the opposition to my proposed compromise was focused on the fact that I took the words "verifiability not truth" out of the lede sentence. That was seen as being a major change in policy (even though it wasn't intended to be such).  And the consistent nature of this point of opposition tells me that we will never reach a consensus unless we come up with something that retains these three words in the lede (and it may be that we will have to keep them the opening sentence, and spend the rest of the policy explaining what they mean).  Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a major sticking point, but it's also a major source of support. Blueboar, I really don't think it's a good idea to try to appease the VNT zealots with the next version, because we'll lose so much of our existing backing in the process.  I think we need target the (relatively substantial) number who opposed based on WP:CREEP, which I understand to mean length and clarity of wording.  I think the route to consensus is to express the compromise you've already suggested, but more clearly and pithily.— S Marshall  T/C 20:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here. Most of those who didn't want it removed from the lede wanted no change or only very minimal change. You cannot always get everyone to agree even with the best compromise and I believe trying to appease them will alienate those who want it removed from the lede for reasons you stated above (as well as for some the negative press this has gotten Wikipedia for being a place where we don't care about truth, just sourcing. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  01:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently involved in a discussion on the Abortion talk page, in which we are discussing the fact that medical textbooks say abortion only occurs prior to the viability of the fetus. So that's how the lead defines it. It's obvious that this is untrue: abortion takes place post-viability. Legal and other sources say so. However, in spite of Wikipedia containing an glaring error because of the sources, I would not change this policy by allowing editors to decide (above referred to as "discuss") what is true: that would be far too much of a can of worms. The concern that it can be misconstrued to say that all verifiable information should be included is valid, and the modifier of WEIGHT should be mentioned. But probably not in that sentence. We should also consider that memes have their own value, and VNT is a meme now. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 20:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We may want to do our refocusing on a subpage, because it helps to talk somewhere quieter and I think this page might be active with other things for a little while.— S Marshall T/C 23:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * When the proposal was being drafted, I disagreed with S Marshall about (4), taking the VNT part out of the lead section. In fact, I warned that doing so would tip enough editors into the oppose column that the proposal would fail. I was partly wrong: the proposal did way, way better than I expected it to do. But it still didn't get consensus. Above, Blueboar suggests that taking it out of the lead section was a significant impediment to consensus. That's correct. The response, that one shouldn't "try to appease the VNT zealots", is what will doom the next proposal, and the one after that, and the one after that. Keep in mind: a big part of the community (and surely not all zealots) did not accept that the proposal was really a compromise. That line about "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" applies here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely correct. VnT won the day with a landslide minority, which is perverse. But tweaking the question or clarifying the rationale is not going to bring a different result. A different closer or set of closers might do, but since all three were in agreement on this occasion, it doesn't look so good. --FormerIP (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said below, when I read the RFC results, what I see is more users who insist on removing VNT from the lede than users who insist on retaining it. May I suggest re-reading carefully and examining what the supporters say?  They appreciated the more nuanced, less dogmatic and sloganistic, approach of Blueboar's compromise, and substantial numbers saw the removal of VNT from the lede as something positively to be encouraged.  We do need to retain those people on side if we're to achieve consensus.— S Marshall  T/C 09:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * FormerIP, thanks. S Marshall, please consider whether you are a "remove from the lead zealot". I know I'm not going to convince you, but I'm saying this to other editors reading here. I actually saw rather few editors who supported it and said that they would oppose any proposal that kept it in the lead. Sure, a clear majority supported the proposal, but a great many of those would also be happy with a new proposal that achieves that "nuanced, less dogmatic and sloganistic, approach" within the lead. That is very do-able, and will be supported by a large number of those who opposed this time, excluding only those few who really are zealots. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you've seriously misread the previous RFC, and I look forward to the next RFC which will give us a chance to test what editors really do want. We might want to ask the question specificially: "Should VNT be removed from the lede and placed in a separate section?"— S Marshall  T/C 13:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As we have discussed in subsequent threads, it's becoming pretty clear that we are both looking at the same information, drawing different conclusions, and feeling very sincerely that the other person is misreading it. I guess at least one of us may be wrong. But, more recently, you have said that removing VNT from the lead is a "bright line" issue for you. And here, you say that you are actually "looking forward" to another RfC. Well, I guess everyone should have a hobby. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, Tryptofish, what's happening on this page is worrying me. Interest has massively dropped off.  Editors who tend towards my position on this—JN466, North8000, Hans Adler et al.—seem temporarily inactive, perhaps sick of/disheartened with the process, while previously uninvolved editors who tend away from it—JakeInJoisey, Becritical et. al.—have become highly active.  The centre of gravity here is shifting.  But that's clearly not a genuine shift.  It's an artifact of the small number of people who're participating here.  As you yourself have agreed, the wider consensus among the whole community is towards dissatisfaction with VNT as currently phrased, and away from the status quo.  So what we have is an unrepresentative minority getting into a huddle over it, and I disapprove.  In an attempt to compensate for the absence of other editors who're prepared to challenge the huddle, I find myself becoming increasingly vocal and strident here. This is where the next RFC will help me.  On the one hand, could it be that you and JakeInJoisey are right?  I really don't think so at all, but a new RFC on the specific issue will let us be certain.  On the gripping hand, if I'm right about how editors feel, and I really do think I am, then an RFC will disperse the huddle and we can get back to the proper business of rewriting the lede to exclude the Toxic Trio and banish it to lower down the page where it belongs.— S Marshall  T/C 00:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is a lack of good faith to suggest that a few editor's working collaboratively is in some way creating a shift that is not genuine. You may not like it, but that might have more to do with the 500+ edits you've made, I don't know. Please don't have a go at people for trying to make progress. This toxic trio stuff is nonsense. Leaky  Caldron  00:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal
Blueboar's summary is accurate. I'll try this again – how about changing the lead para as follows (the key change is underlined):

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough for an editor simply to assert that it is true not enough for it to be true.

For reference, the present wording is

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.

This is fully in line with the intent of VnT as originally drafted, , (note the long explanation about meeting Stephen Hawking in a pub, long since dropped from the policy), and it leaves the question of what to do with sources believed to be mistaken to the policy designed and able to address that question: WP:NPOV / WP:DUE.

It keeps the "verifiability, not truth" wording that many editors are attached to, but prevents its being used in a way that is counter to the original intent (i.e. prevents it from being used to argue that questioning the reliability of a source is somehow against policy). -- J N  466  04:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am against the proposed new wording (specifically, the wording "It is not enough for it to be true ") -- "truth" is far too easy for partisans to obfuscate and deny to be part of the core policy. Whilst I agree that Wikipedia should not include material that is demonstrably false, I think the standard for impeachment of material published by a reliable source should be appropriately high. The proposal would seem likely to lead to a lowering of this standard to a level that would place a wide range of reliably sourced, but controversial, material in play ("it may be reliably sourced but I tell you that it's simply not true!"). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jayen this is a good compromise. I am concerned about this though, "It is not enough for it to be true."
 * This refers to what the reader sees, "Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. "
 * This refers to "rules' the editor must follow,"It is not enough for it to be true.
 * These two standards are linked in an awkward way. Is there a way to link them so that its clear truth is a subjective criteria editors do not consider,  while at the same time stating what the reader must  find. Should what the reader finds and what the editor does be separate issues and not linked with out any kind of transitional wording which delineates the two. I'm coming late to this talk discussion so this may have been discussed. (olive (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC))
 * To my mind, WP:V has always addressed the (would-be) editor, answering their question: What am I allowed to add to Wikipedia? The sentence about the reader, too, is addressed to the editor, telling them: if you add something, readers must be able to check that it's already been published. (The present version moves from considering readers to considering editors' beliefs in the same way.) -- J N  466  05:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hrafn, WP:V is not about when to impeach or delete sourced material. It's about specifying minimum criteria for inclusion. If you've used this sentence to argue against deletion of sourced material, then, with respect, you've misused it. That was never its intent, and the question of representing significant opinions (even ones we feel are mistaken) in proportion to their published prevalence is fully and comprehensively addressed in WP:NPOV / WP:DUE. -- J N  466  05:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen466: "It is not enough for it to be true " implicitly allows for the exclusion of material on the basis that it is reliably-sourced-but-untrue ("not enough" implies "is necessary"). Stating that in the core articulation of the policy cannot help but give it greater emphasis, and result in easier impeachment. I would not object to a similar point being made, in a more expanded and nuanced manner, in the body of the policy. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we could reword it to say, " It is not enough for an editor simply to assert that it is true. " That would make it clear that we are talking about editors wishing to add material based on an assertion of truth, and aren't talking about truth in the philosophical sense, leaving that issue to WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:RS/N, where it properly belongs. It would also carry the connotation that editors' assertions of (un)truth are generally of less interest to Wikipedia than what reliable sources say. Would that work for you? -- J N  466  07:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. The sentence is a bit awkward though maybe because "it" which is non specifc is used twice. How does this sound. "Even if content is true, this is not enough reason for inclusion in Wikipedia"... too wordy?(olive (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

Hrafn may be right.(olive (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Expanding my earlier point, I believe it is neither necessary nor sufficient for individual editors to believe material to be true. What matters is what reliable sources (or the balance of the sources, if they contradict) says on the subject. I think the current wording of the policy expresses this better than the proposal. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC) (Of course it is possible for a WP:CONSENSUS of editors to decide that something isn't true, but that is equivalent to a consensus that a source, that states that it is true, is unreliable. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC) )


 * I think we are missing the point of V not T... the intent is to tell editors "We do not care about the fact that you (an editor) believe X is true, if you want to add X you have to be able to show that someone else (a reliable source) believes X to be true"  This is a direct application of the concept of Verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We may be trying to word this information in a pithy, succinct way, but in fact Blueboar's simple but more extended wording above would explain it perfectly. Why beat around the bush. This may not be sophisticated (I realize it wasn't meant to be) but Blueboar's statement is very clear and straight forward without the kind of loop holes in language that made manipulation of the policy easy in the past.

''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, We do not care about the fact that you (an editor) believe X is true, if you want to add X you have to be able to show that someone else (a reliable source) believes X to be true. ''

What's the Plan? The big question that it really boils down to
We have basically seen that, under the current "system" (including allowance of fluid "interpretations" of it) a small minority who adamantly wants "not truth" in the first sentence can forever block the majority from removing it. (And by "small" I'm talking about the 5% adamant enough to do such actions, not the 33%)  That really leaves only 3 alternatives:


 * 1) Change the "system" (if you call the current Somalian-govenrance-style system a "system")
 * 2) Give up on getting "not truth" out of the first sentence with a revision which leaves "not truth" in the first sentence, but mitigates the damage that it does by further explanation etc. afterwards.
 * 3) Give up totally and leave it essentially as-is with no substantive changes. North8000 (talk) 18:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't be so pessimistic. If we truly have only 5% who are adamantly opposed to any change, then we simply have to find the compromise that will be acceptable to the other 95%.  I seriously doubt many people would argue that a 95-5 majority is not a very clear consensus... and the few who might will be laughed off the page.  The hard part will be to find something that 95% can agree to.  But I still think it worth the try.
 * With that in mind... Looking at the "opposed" comments at the RfC, a lot of the nay-sayers seemed willing to consider changes, as long as VnT remained in the lede (one of the flaws with my proposal was to move it "below the fold" as it were). I think these editors would be willing to seriously consider placing VnT in the second or third sentence (or even in the second or third paragraph) as long as it was prominent and "above the fold".  I think this is an idea worth exploring further.  (I would also suggest presenting it as "Moving VnT to a new location"... and not presenting it as  "removing it from the first sentence".  The word "remove" is negative in tone, and can trigger misunderstanding and knee-jerk rejection from those who think we are plotting to take it out of the policy completely... which would not be the case). Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My guess / what I meant is that there are about 25% who absolutely want it in the lead, and 5% willing to do the kind of stuff that has happened here to use that 25% to blockade any change. You have a lot more patience to try to work around (vs. fix) a faulty system than I do. But it could be that yours is the better better way. Either way, I admire you.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, are you not concerned that by keeping VNT in the lede you will lose a significant number of supporters? I'm convinced that the way forward should be to say exactly what we said last time, but more succinctly and pithily, so that we bring into the fold the people who opposed based on WP:CREEP.  I also suggest not trying to minimise it or pretend it's a small change.  We know it's controversial.— S Marshall  T/C 19:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, I haven't read or participated much in the discussion, but this looks like it's starting to be a matter of beating a dead horse. I mean, that RfC was closed because it was disruptive after all the other discussion.  Now we're still going over trying to remove the text?  Trying to explain it better I can see, but it looks like there is no consensus to remove it or take it out of the lead, and that should be respected.  We shouldn't have to have discussions till the more persistent side gets its way.  It shouldn't work that way.  Just as an aside, POV pushers will never get it and marginal POV pushers will always misinterpret in some way.  That's their nature.  Please focus on what non-POV-pushers will understand.  And also note how useful VnT is for dealing with POV pushers.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blueboar is right! Of course, keeping it in the lead means we will lose supporters: namely S Marshall and a handful of others who camp out in this talk. But we'll gain a very large number of new supporters, and the fear that we would really lose more than a trivial number of past supporters is completely unfounded. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

oversimplification. Yes you'll gain supporters for those who want it in there lead which is substantial. However, there were far more who wanted it removed/moved outside the lead and those would likely (given their opinions) not support keeping it in the lead. There is no compromise outside of a moving it to a location outside the lead - either its in the lead or its not. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai
 * Other way around, as I see it. Sorry! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem here is that we aren't all reading the RFC in the same way. This is confirmation bias.  We all see confirmation of our old positions.  I read the RFC and I see confirmation that editors want VNT gone.  When I read what editors say, it's crystal clear to me, plain as my nose, that I've been right all along.  But when Blueboar and Tryptofish and Be Critical read it, you somehow see confirmation that VNT needs to stay.— S Marshall  T/C 20:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

On the principle of it, the actual outcome of the RFC was to to make that change. And by nearly any system except this current failure of a "system" the change shoud be be made. But all along I would have been happy with added wording that significantly reduces the misuses of "not truth". North8000 (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * VnT could be moved down and explained better, as long as it's not a creeping deletion.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was exactly the intention. Moving it. Blueboar (again) has a good idea - word is as "moving", not "removing".  Maybe those who couldn't see it before will then see it.   Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 22:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The compromise was to move it out of the lede.  I'm re-reading the RFC in another window, and once again I'm very forcefully struck by the sheer number of editors who specifically wanted VNT out of the lede and expressed the view that it was harmful, or did more harm than good.  In the support camp, it seems to be virtually all of them who're saying that.  (I'm reading the "support because it's clearer" camp as endorsing Blueboar's proposal to put it in a separate section, which I think is uncontroversial.)— S Marshall  T/C 22:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are certainly right about how each of us is reading the same information and seeing different things! Your last "uncontroversial" point suggests to me one of the ways in which this phenomenon may be occurring. I also see many who support "because it's clearer", but I think most of them are saying that the excellent wording that Blueboar came up with was very helpful in clarifying what VNT means and does not mean – but not that they were arguing that it would be necessary to move that explanation out of the lead in order to achieve that clarity. And many (though not 100%) of those who said VNT was harmful said so because they felt it was inadequately explained in the current version, and better explained in the proposed version, but not that the simple fact of it being in the lead was harmful (assuming it were better explained). --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I was agreeing with Blueboar. I do not however think it should be out of the lead, merely explained better:

Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 22:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1)  Leaky  Caldron  23:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain your objection to:-

— S Marshall T/C 22:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your version gives POV pushers the right to object that a thing must be true in addition to being verifiable.  That constitutes a basic and extreme change to core Wikipedia policy.  In Wikipedia, we are not supposed to be concerned whether the information we add is true or false, only that per the overall preponderance of reliable sources, it is accurately represented.  I can hear the arguments over at Occupy Wall Street (or any controversial article) now: we know it's not true so we're not going to add it even though most of the RS say it's true.  Same at Abortion: we know it's not true that abortion only occurs pre-viability wo we're going to tinker with the definition till we know it's not only verifiable but true.  What you are doing is excluding untrue statements (per editor opinion) which are verifiable.  In additon, you are leaving to editorial judgment what an "exceptional" claim is.  Your last two sentences do not refer to WEIGHT, and thus an editor can, again, use their own opinion to try and keep something in or out of an article.  In short: you're leaving the door wide open for POV pushing, and in the process you're losing a very useful and though-provoking meme.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, then we have a fundamental philosophical difference between you and me. This is what Jimbo Wales was talking about when he criticised the "transcription monkeys" (his phrase) who think editors are supposed to report what the sources say without judging them.  My position is that editors can, should, and do, evaluate the sources and come to a view about which one is correct, and that this is perfectly normal practice.  That's why our article on Apollo program makes no mention of the Moon landing conspiracy theories.  It's also why our article on species doesn't mention baramin or baraminology.  I can produce other examples if you like.  What happens in these cases is editors decide to omit the fringe view on the basis of their editorial judgment, on the basis that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.  I'm merely documenting our current practice.  I also don't agree that VNT is a useful or thought provoking meme.  I think it's a simplistic slogan and its purpose is to end the thinking process, not to kickstart it.  If we want something thought provoking and useful, then we'll have to write something a great deal more nuanced than VNT.— S Marshall  T/C 00:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, not the "fringe" stuff again. We shouldn't rewrite policy on the basis of fringe ideas.  But basically you're right: WP policy only comes into play at deadlocks.  But when there is a deadlock, you don't want editorial judgment to be the deciding factor, because such judgment has already broken down.  That's when we need some other recourse, and the only one I know about is to suspend editorial judgment and become transcription monkeys: rely on RS and NOR per WEIGHT.  Which, BTW, isn't such a bad thing anyway.  A lot of editors, including myself, do think that VnT is thought provoking.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't rewrite policy on the basis of fringe ideas, but we certainly should write policy to deal with people who push fringe points of view. These are exactly the people who will get pointed to WP:V and the last thing we want is for them to find support, in policy, for the idea that anything that's been published can be added to an article.  Because the fact that something's been published does not always make it reliable, I'm afraid, and discussion is the only way to deal with such editors: becoming transcription monkeys won't do, when there's a deadlock, because it enables a POV-pusher to manufacture doubt where there is certainty.  The encyclopaedia should say what the mainstream academic consensus says.  Fringe views belong only in articles about fringe theories.  If we want this encyclopaedia to get any more accurate then we really need to give editors the policy tools to make that happen, don't we?  I don't know what NOR has to do with it; it's not original research to exclude baraminology from species or Moon landing conspiracy theories from Apollo program.— S Marshall  T/C 07:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess I just don't get how my version above would allow any fringe theorist to have their way. It explicitly and strongly disallows "anything that's been published can be added to an article," by referring to WEIGHT, and for the very reason you mention.  Look what the version above actually says: to include something it has to meet NOR + WEIGHT + V, and if it does then it will reflect what "mainstream academic consensus says."  And then it makes clear that what editors think about the material that comes out of applying these policies doesn't matter (if there is actually a dispute, otherwise editors have more freedom like you said).  I don't think we disagree, rather I think you aren't interpreting the strength of my version above and aren't noticing the weakness of your own version.  Sorry to plug for my own version.  It's just I think it covers all your worries better than your own version.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  08:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that your version implicitly (not explicitly) disallows "anything that's been published can be added to an article", but then goes on to undermine that by putting VNT in bold as if it were the main point. I see my proposal as significantly clearer about that.  We'll probably need to put competing drafts to others before we can decide how to proceed.— S Marshall  T/C 08:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * VnT doesn't need to be in bold. I'll edit my version to include explicitly that you don't just add anything that's published even by a RS.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Marshall, would you accept simply putting further explanation in a footnote, rather than interrupting the flow of the text? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my position remains has been for a long time now: I agree with the views expressed by Bali Ultimate and Kansan when they said VNT is "creepy" and "one of the most puketastic bits of wikipedia". My bright-line minimum condition for anything I would "accept" is to remove VNT from the lede and banish it far down the page, into a separate subsection where it can be properly explained so as to minimise the damage it does.  I would "accept" most forms of words that achieve that, but I would not "accept" any form of words that does not.— S Marshall  T/C 21:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, well no compromise possible I guess.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there any form of words without VNT in the lede that you would accept?— S Marshall T/C 21:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, which is why I didn't join this discussion earlier: I don't care that much if there is real consensus. But VnT has value in itself as a meme.  I have never seen it do damage, and I've never seen an example of it doing damage which wouldn't have happened no matter what the wording of policy is; and I have seen it do good, for myself and others.  I think this whole dispute could be resolved by leaving the lead the way it is, with a well-crafted footnote which covers all the angles.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It could also be resolved by rewriting the lede along the lines of Blueboar's compromise and explaining VNT separately, though, as favoured by most editors. I'm sure with a slightly different form of words we could achieve that.— S Marshall  T/C 23:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, drawing "bright lines" rarely leads to anything other than prolonged gridlock. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)