Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 55

Compromise
I have boldly proposed a compromise formatting which hopefully will address the concerns of both viewpoints in the recent RFC. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And I put it to WP:BRD, not because I really think it's that bad, but because I think there have been, oh, let's see, a whole bunch (I think that's the exact number, by my count) of other compromise versions that have been proposed, several of which are better. As much as I'd like to see a bold-and-done resolution to all of this, we cannot really follow the RfC closure, and its findings about consensus, with a lead change without prior discussion. Alas, there are no shortcuts. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We can always go back to the status quo if it is not possible to get agreement on this version. FWIW, I have various quibbles with it, but it would be good to give it a chance of life rather than just kill anything bold on sight. --FormerIP (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I said as much in my edit summary when I reverted the revert, "Tsk, tsk, To be fair, you need to give a specific reason why a good faith edit isn't acceptable when reverting". --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I hesitated before reverting for that very reason. But I have a long list of quibbles myself, and I figure we could elicit those here in talk. It's unlikely that there would have been a lasting consensus for that version.


 * As for better versions, please look back at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence. I'd suggest the versions there as some possible starting points. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bob: tsk, tsk yourself. I said I was going to take it to talk, and I did. And this wasn't just any edit. It was a change to the opening of a core policy. We generally encourage discussion before making such changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, still tsk, tsk. : ) You still haven't given a specific criticism of the good faith edit, i.e. what don't you like about it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, my lord. I don't like that it gives what we don't do, before it gives what we do. I don't like the "seeks" formulation, which is simplistic and misleading. I don't think it provides the explanatory clarity of Blueboar's language with respect to when material is added and when material is removed. And, as I already said, there are multiple better versions already discussed. And what I probably dislike the most of all is that nobody, including you, Bob, has given any reasons for making the change, even though it's a change to the opening paragraph of a core policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it because it doesn't give the false impression that Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth, which was a fault of the previous version. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for you! Can you explain why it is better than other proposed versions, or refute the criticisms that I have provided? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also like some of the other versions. But they have a major flaw, because it is not possible to be sure that discussing them will not prove to be a waste of time after some hybrid version gets RfC'd next summer. --FormerIP (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel your pain. But it isn't a reason to override consensus. And the edit that led to this discussion has, in my opinion, been rather a waste of time itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "A waste of time" — Please consider whether that is disrespectful regarding a good faith edit. Perhaps you would care to modify your comment in that regard? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was good faith, and never said otherwise. It also isn't going to lead to anything that will improve the policy page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's only a !consensus to retain VnT in the lead. We can quite permissible boldly go anywhere else. --FormerIP (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And to revert... --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But not if the reason is a supposition that there exists a consensus to keep everything exactly as it is. --FormerIP (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only consensus there seems to be is a consensus for change. There is no consensus that VnT should stay in the lead, should stay at all or should be removed. There is a majority who think that it shouldn't be in the lead at least, but that's not a consensus. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's what you might call a "!consensus". --FormerIP (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if you ignore all those who said they didn't want it in or wanted it moved. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is pretty much what happened. --FormerIP (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'm concerned that the change to the second paragraph subtly shifts the emphasis towards making it more acceptable to add unsourced material and original research. What was "contradictory" about what it said before? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Within the same sentence, we had "all material added to articles must be attributable...but in practice you do not need to attribute everything". --FormerIP (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now. Could we perhaps restore a sentence structure or choice of words that doesn't sound like "it's fine to add unsourced material just so long as nobody else raises a question about it"? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about what I just did? --FormerIP (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (At this point, my head is spinning!) A step in the right direction. But I'm concerned that the sentence after it still sounds "off". It might be better to focus on that latter sentence instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I modified it, and that satisfies the concerns that I raised. Is that OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that does it. --FormerIP (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Getting back to the edit which is the topic of this section, it's been reverted again, which is now OK by me because there has finally been specific criticism of it by someone, viz. you. Here it is for reference,
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. This has traditionally been described as verifiability, not truth, meaning not that Wikipedia publishes "verifiable" falsehoods; rather it seeks truth through verifiability.

First off, could you help out by suggesting any way to modify the proposed edit to address any of your criticisms? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd start by making it more like what I linked to a couple of comments above. (I think minor tweaks will not accomplish much.) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the editor who suggested it, Nobody Ent, might weigh in. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we've had quite enough of this ad hoc editing. This is a friggin' POLICY page for God's sake...and arguably the most important. You have a proposal, propose it here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jake: although you reverted the most recent change to the second paragraph, you didn't actually revert it back to where it was a few hours ago. Just saying. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Who the hell knows where it stands with all this juvenile sanbox-esque editing underway. ADMINS...take control of this process. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As an admin, who could intervene but would prefer sanity restore itself....
 * Please remember that:
 * The guideline is BRD not BRRDrRDDrRRrDDdRRRdRRrrrDDd.
 * This is a policy, and excess back and forth here is much less acceptable than elsewhere.
 * I appreciate the ongoing efforts to find a compromise consensus, and everyone here's working in good faith, but it's time for a little more heartfelt discussion before any more edits are made.
 * Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused how that isn't the history of every page except it's more BBBBBBBBrBBBBBrDBBBBBRBBBRBRbBBBBBBRD? (and for what it's worth I give you a years worth of reading in the archives (no I don't mean just go back a year and read, I mean read all the archives and it'll take you about a year to get through it) if you want discussion).Crazynast 18:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, we don't seek truth, through verifiability or anything else. That's re the original suggestion.  Be— —Critical  21:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping get the discussion back on topic. I've heard that before, re "seeking truth". Does that essentially mean that Wikipedia editors simply report what has been published in reliable sources, regardless of whether some reliable sources are more credible than others, i.e. regardless of whether some reliable sources are more likely to be true than others?  That doesn't seem to be the case in Wikipedia.  In fact, in the section  Verifiability,  there is the part that says,
 * "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."
 * If the purpose of that sentence isn't for seeking the truth, as best as we can, then what is the purpose of that statement in the policy?  --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's how I see it: Wikipedia is a scholarly encyclopedia. It may be that scholarship is about seeking truth... but Wikipedia is about seeking out the best scholarship (as defined by policy, not our concept of "best;" which basically means it is defined by mainstream institutions).  If on the other hand we strive for truth, not scholarship, then we will distort our coverage of subjects.  We will no longer be neutral relative to the RS.  Not to mention that any mention of the word "truth" just invites people to use their own opinions. Essays: Truth, Verifiability, not truth.  Be— —Critical  23:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Re "It may be that scholarship is about seeking truth... but Wikipedia is about seeking out the best scholarship (as defined by policy, not our concept of "best;" which basically means it is defined by mainstream institutions)." — There are different ways that an editor can seek the truth. One way is through an editor's original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Another way an editor can seek the truth is through choosing the best reliable sources, according to policy.


 * Re "If on the other hand we strive for truth, not scholarship, then we will distort our coverage of subjects." — That distortion would only occur if editors use their own original research or are biased in their selection of reliable sources. Wikipedia editors are supposed to seek the truth through the use of reliable sources in a way suggested by V, NPOV, NOR, etc. For example, Wikipedia editors seek the truth by using the best reliable sources according to WP:V, not just any reliable source.


 * Are we any closer to having the same understanding regarding this, i.e. that editors should seek the truth by choosing the best reliable sources according to policy, not by original research for example? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, we always agreed on the substance, but any wording using "truth" will definitely invite Truthiness Be— —Critical  23:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposed version says "seeks truth through verifiability." That seems to express clearly what we both agree on, without implying that editors can seek truth through their own original research. Also note that it is clarifying  the phrase "verifiability, not truth". --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I'm talking about POV pushing, and any mention of truth will allow a POV pusher to say "I get to choose which sources I use..." etc. Please just avoid the word, can't we?   Be— —Critical  00:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "Please just avoid the word, can't we?" — It's only there because the editor was trying to explain "verifiability, not truth", and the version was meant as a compromise that the editor thought might satisfy those who liked "verifiability, not truth", and those who didn't like it because of the implication that Wikipedia didn't care about the truth. I don't like the use of the word "truth" either, for example in the phrase "verifiability, not truth". I guess we differ in opinion about this but at least we understand each other, I think........so, bye and regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That's something I could go for: avoiding the word "truth" completely. I like that.— S Marshall T/C 10:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called "compromise". Not "just what I want". Get it? Doc   talk  10:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, it's not necessary for you to be so peremptory. I'm not being unreasonably obstructive.  I'm one of the majority who wanted VNT out of the lede.  It's also not unreasonable of me to offer various alternative ways forward.  "Compromise" means something acceptable to all the parties, you see.— S Marshall  T/C 10:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Insanity / Just do it
One of the many reasons for my Wiki-happiness is only feeling compelled to have five things locked in my head; while I obviously attempt to follow the WP-this and WP-that (when I'm aware of, and recall them), I only see them as amplifying those five things. Two of those five things are consensus and not bureauracy. We have a situation where there is clearly a consensus for change, if even it's not clear what that change should be, but we're being held back by bureaucratic inertia.

I don't actually care what the words say, as I understand the gestalt of verifiability; if blueboar's or anyone else's is better, put those in. As far as the appropriateness of bold edits, with all due respect to GWH, I find this editor's call to action more compelling

I encourage everyone who wants to move forward to remember better is the enemy of good enough, and consider not whether each suggested change is better than their preferred version, but an improvement, however, slight, over the status quo. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 21:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You think that hasn't been tried before? It's a policy page, and we don't need BRD (for major changes without consensus for those changes) in this situation. It's under discussion. Doc   talk  21:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After some changes, and no reverts, and everybody's keeping quiet about those changes....? Maybe it's not a stalemate after all. Doc   talk  04:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See it really can be painless :).Crazynast 18:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest waiting six months-1 year and trying again with another RfC. Cla68 (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yay! This is my 80-somethingish edit to this page: but what do the major "anti-VnT" editors have to say about it? Taking 2/3rds of the "TT" out of boldface? I'm looking at you two, S Marshall and North8000, with nearly 2000 edits to this talk page between the two of you. Doc   talk  05:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a small step towards our goal, and I approve.— S Marshall T/C 09:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A small step. Very kind of you. I'm not sure what your "goal" is, but if it's to post another 500+ edits to this page, it's going to be tough to further stomach accusations of "shouting down" people here. If by "our" goal you mean North8000: well, they hold the record, since they began commenting here in July of 2010 and have an astonishing 1400 edits here. By comparison, "arch-nemesis" SV has been editing this page for over five years longer than North8000, and has less than 250 more edits to the page. What is the goal, exactly? Doc   talk  10:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Our" goal, as I've been saying for the last fourteen months here, means the objective of getting VNT out of the lede completely.— S Marshall T/C 10:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And that's why that campaign may fail again - an unwillingness to compromise. De-emphasizing "VnT" as is it now almost eviscerates the meme of what it was: a huge compromise, really. But it's only a small step towards your goal? Yikes. Doc   talk  10:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, changing two words from bold to italic is not a huge compromise. It's a tiny, microscopic compromise.— S Marshall  T/C 10:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you prefer that it say "verifiability and truth" vs. "verifiability, not truth"? I forgot to ask you that. Doc   talk  10:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, that would be a major change which IMHO solves the current probelem but would probably create a now one. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So... "VNT" in the lede: no good. "VAT" in the lede: okay. It's not about the word "truth" then, right? It's really one toxic word, not a trio of them. Doc   talk  11:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with North that VAT would be taking it too far. I certainly do still want to stop people from altering verifiable text to what they believe is true.  The problem with VNT is that it means that anything verifiable can be included even if it's a pack of lies, and I have a major issue with people who think it's acceptable to introduce lies into the encyclopaedia.  But that doesn't mean we need to open the door wide to those who want to push "truth" on us.— S Marshall  T/C 11:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * North said that VAT would "solve the current problem". Do you agree with that? Doc   talk  11:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do agree that it would solve the current problem. I also agree with North that it still wouldn't be a very good idea.— S Marshall  T/C 11:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How would changing "not" to "and" fix a temporary problem - but not be good in the long run? Doc   talk  11:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to explain this another way. (1) Our problem with "verifiability not truth" is that it means anything verifiable can be included. (2) "Verifiability and truth" does not mean this. Therefore (3) "Verifiability and truth" would solve this particular problem. But this does not mean (4) Changing "verifiability not truth" to "verifiability and truth" is a good idea Because (5) It would create other problems. Is that clearer?— S Marshall T/C 12:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What other problems would VAT create, specifically? Doc   talk  12:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it allows a POV-pusher to use the following chain of reasoning: "Verifiability and truth. Your text is verifiable but false. My text is unverifiable but true.  Therefore they are equal and we must include both."— S Marshall  T/C 12:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In your opinion: is it preferable to have neither VNT nor VAT in the lede? Are both equally objectionable for the long-term goal of the wording of the lede? Doc   talk  12:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @S Marshall
 * (1) Our problem with "verifiability not truth" is that it means anything verifiable can be included.
 * No, it does not...and repeating this out-of-context and false assertion doesn't make it any more valid. You are excising the long-established consensus context in which the phrase is contained ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth...") and then suggesting, IMHO, some thus far unconvincing, undemonstrable, IMHO,  systemic "problem" as the resultant. Instead, allusions are made (several times as I recall) to the plausibility that editors unfamiliar with the established contextual meaning of the phrase "might" utilize this false interpretation of existing policy to "POV push" content into existing articles.  In practice, though some might try this approach, there doesn't appear to be any evidence thus far presented that such an approach can and will prevail where challenged.  Some personal frustration occasionally experienced in setting some wayward editor straight is hardly justification for the watering down of what has been an historical and almost universally understood bedrock Wikipedia policy. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I consider that the final sentence of the lead should be extended as follows: "....not whether editors think, believe or know it to be true". The reason for this is that there is a difference in some editor's between thinking, believing and knowing. For example, some people "think" that JFK was not assassinated by LHO acting alone. Others really "believe" that he didn't act alone and others (fringe/cranks/CIA whatever) "know" that he did not action alone. We should cover these flavours of "truth." Leaky  Caldron  13:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your comment coalesced a thought that I've been mulling over since my introduction to this discussion, perhaps expressed as "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth or dogma...". JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Jake, you're bordering on IDHT. Demands for evidence lose their force when the evidence is plainly linked from this page. Please just read what we've posted, follow the links, think through what's being said on the pages we've shown, and do the background reading. If you still don't think it's a widespread problem, why not re-read the replies to the RFC? What would be productive, right now, is if you could produce your evidence of an occasion when VNT has helped but Blueboar's compromise would not have done just as well. Doc, I've explained why I would think of VNT and VAT as both highly problematic formulations and I don't understand why you're pursuing VAT. I can't really choose one over the other, it's scylla and charybdis. It might help if you would explain where you're going with this idea. Do you expect to convince editors such as JakeInJoisey that "verifiability and truth" is the way forward?— S Marshall T/C 13:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jake, you're bordering on IDHT.
 * Actually, I'm hearing quite well...and what I'm hearing (about a 2 year old article that was, ultimately, successfully AfD'd by existing WP:Policy process) is underwhelming, to say the least. However, even assuming that this sole example (thus far examined anyway) was the be-all, end-all, quintessential evidence to support your contention of a systemic "problem" fostered by VnT, User:A Quest For Knowledge asks (several times already in various forms) the probative question above...which, thus far anyway, remains unanswered...
 * 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) 6:44 pm, 18 December 2011, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)
 * Now for something you're apparently not hearing...but Blueboar apparently has. You have yet to make a succinct and irrefutable case that your oft-stated allegation of a systemic "problem" has any merit. I'd suggest you join Blueboar in pursuing that goal.  How you go about it is your business, but Blueboar's queries in that regard appear to be the only current and viable pathway. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked you to produce evidence in support of your position. Can I take that to mean that you refuse?— S Marshall  T/C 15:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I take that to mean that you refuse?
 * No, you can take it to mean that I'll not waste time re-examining and re-debating an already resolved (and now dead via RfC) issue. However, I do find Blueboar's most recent suggested lede edit below which DOES include VnT (though relegated to second paragraph status) to be a tentatively acceptable edit. I'll be interested to hear other editorial opinion on it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you can take it to mean that I'll not waste time So the situation is that I've produced evidence and you haven't. All the best— S Marshall  T/C 15:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Um, no. Your purported "evidence" doesn't support your premise of a systemic "problem" fostered by "VnT"...and by a long shot. That "VnT" is still incorporated in Blueboar's latest suggested "compromise" suggests it to be a consensus-acceptable concept...which is my position as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And all the evidence Hans produced at User:Hans Adler/Verifiability, not truth? Is all that "Um, no" as well?— S Marshall  T/C 16:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the responsibility of YOUR coterie of anti-"VnT" proponents to demonstrate the specific relevancy of the cited examples, not mine. What I saw here was a list of purported examples bereft of comment. However, I will have a look at the link you provided JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No. We have provided evidence. It's now your turn to do so. This discussion will not consist purely of us running round producing evidence and you quibbling it.— S Marshall T/C 16:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a VAT tax? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No. We have provided evidence.
 * You're more than welcome then to rest your case on it. Good luck with that. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * challenged or likely to be challenged to  challenged or likely to be challenged per my reasoning in edit summary I feel it is redundant, another user reverted so I'm bringing it here. To restate, anything that has been challenged was likely to be challenged anyhow, unnecessary verbiage.  Thoughts?Crazynast 18:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see some value in keeping the longer wording. "Likely to be challenged" can reasonably be construed to mean "likely to be challenged, but it hasn't been challenged yet". Of course, removing material is itself an act of challenging it, and we are talking about very picayune distinctions, but policy should be written to fend off disputes by those who pick hairs, so we might as well err on the side of covering all bases. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was I who reverted and I believe that the current language correctly suggests citation provision where dispute and/or challenge might be anticipated. Editors are, IMHO, generally aware if and when content they incorporate is likely to be controversial and/or challenged.  JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's fine, I value clarity over conciseness. The phrase just felt redundant to me, I have no problem leaving it in if that's what it takes to get the message across. Crazynast 23:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not wild about the edit making "likely" bold amid the italics. It makes it look like "likely" is the critical issue. If anything, the sentiment in the discussion just above is that it's better not to make too much of a deal about likelihood. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 20 Decetmber 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's fine, however the entire phrase being bolded is a bit much no? I do feel, however, that we should be emphasizing that it's is likely challengeable things that need the proper sourcing (the challenged or, all in bold makes it seem that the primary purpose is to win when confronted, not that editors should be thinking about what others might find hard to believe) ... however feel free to undo it.  Crazynast 03:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding WEIGHT to V
I put in a small section to note that V is modified by WEIGHT. The text was drastically modified, in such a way as to completely change its meaning. The content might be appropriate, but should have been added in a subsequent paragraph, not as a modification of the more general overview of how WEIGHT influences V. Then the text was removed, quite justifiably, because it was now more about OR not how WEIGHT influences V. So I'd like more opinions about it. Be— —Critical 19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Extremist views
Can anyone clarify, in this statement here:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion."

Widely acknowledged by who?

Shouldn't Wikipedia have a more standardised test than this, relating more directly to whether there is actually fact-checking and editorial oversight?

I can understand 'rely heavily on rumor and personal opinon', because by definition that's not relying on facts, and that could be shown. In terms of being promotional or extremist - what does that mean exactly? EverSince (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I recall reading this bit ages ago and being jarred at the same point, particularly with regard to extremist views, considering that what is seen as extremist by the majority in some societies or ages, may be seen as the factually correct and right view in others, all having nothing to do with their editorial procedures, other than that they're likely to be in the minority and have less resources than the majority. EverSince (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC) NB: I'd like to make it clear this is not about what weight extremist views are given within articles on Wikipedia, but whether publications expressing "extremist" (or promotional) views can be automatically considered to have questionable fact-checking/editorial procedures, and so can't usually be used to source factual claims. EverSince (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Widely acknowledged" means "widely acknowledged by other sources", or something that—using your Best Editorial Judgment and common sense—you believe is so similar to other such sources that it's obvious.
 * It's not always possible for us to find out whether a source engages in fact-checking or has meaningful editorial oversight. When we can't find out the "real" answer, we use the apparent quality of the product itself to make a guess at whether the publication engages in fact-checking and has decent editorial oversight.  In our collective experience, people writing crackpot ideas ("Nobody ever went to the Moon!"), selling stuff ("promotional"), or spouting rumors ("Teen heartthrob of the week looked drunk last night!  Or maybe that strange expression on his face was due to having his foot stepped on!") have not been the sources with fact-checking and editorial oversight.  It might not be true in this or that case, but it makes a pretty good rule of thumb.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello WhatamIdoing.


 * No doubt this does make a useful rule of thumb for editors (though re 'in our collective experience' I'm not sure an editor can speak on behalf of the general Wikipedia experience of all of us). This guideline doesn't appear to be putting it forward as just a rule of thumb, though - it simply says such a publication is therefore Questionable, and 'Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves.'


 * Even if the guideline did characterise it as a rule of thumb, I suppose my issue is how the heuristic would be fleshed out if it needed to be.


 * For example, would sources need to actually state that a particular publication expresses extremist views (and that such views are typical of that publication). Seems unlikely. Perhaps they could just class that general type of view as extreme - but then they might not actually use that term (especially outside of politics or whatever). I imagine that in many cases sources would only be saying that such and such a view is widely considered to be without factual basis or scientific merit.


 * Similarly with regards to 'promotional' - what are the limits of this. Sure if a publication by its own admission consists of content that is openly selling specific products. What about all the other varieties and shades of promotional activity, that may be characterised by other sources as such, or shown to be through material conflicts of interest?


 * Re rumor/personal opinion, as I said I wasn't suggesting a similar problem with that, becuse that seems to be just a direct rephrasing of whether are going by reliable facts.


 * Interestingly. re 'crackpot', Online etymology says "crackpot: "mentally unbalanced person." And Crank (person) says: "a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false." And "Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief." There's apparently a half-serious Crackpot index. EverSince (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Isn't that already asked and answered? I repeat:
 * "Widely acknowledged means
 * "widely acknowledged by other sources", or
 * something that—using your Best Editorial Judgment and common sense—you believe is so similar to other such sources that it's obvious."
 * Does that sentence not answer your question about whether it's absolutely necessary to have a reliable source that directly calls the source "extremist"? Does it not tell you the process that we use to identify whether a source is promotional?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes you answered the point about sources being required and thank you. So the guideline needs to be made clearer on that point then?


 * As regards the point about judgement, is that phrase totally clear? If what is so similar to what? (the views being expressed being similar to views other sources have labelled extremist/promotional? and/or the term used by those sources being similar enough to 'extremist' or 'promotional'?)


 * That still leaves the more general issue. I don't know if anyone else can see the unease I have here, but Extremism certainly emphasises the politically loaded meaning of that term, including "In democratic societies, individuals or groups that advocate the replacement of democracy with an authoritarian regime are usually branded extremists, in authoritarian societies the opposite applies." So to repeat, using that term in this guideline seems to be a highly dubious way to indicate a priori lack of editorial oversight and fact-checking. There's something about the use of the word 'acknowledged' that seems to assume an objectivity about it too. EverSince (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * At the risk of sounding like I'm providing you with a dictionary definition of the word or, you did notice that one or the other is adequate? It is not necessary for a reliable source to specifically call out every single extremist publication for us to recognize the commonalities.
 * So we have multiple reliable sources that say Aryan Nations is an extremist group. That makes them, and by extension, their publications "widely acknowledged" to be extremist as far as Wikipedia is concerned.  You therefore would consider their website to be an extremist publication, and you would handle it as a questionable source.  You could use it for certain specific purposes, like saying that the Aryan Nations hold anti-Jewish racist beliefs, but you couldn't use that organization's website the way you might use (for example) the website of the American Cancer Society.
 * Now imagine that you found a website that no reliable sources have written about. It contains material very similar to the racist materials on the Aryan Nations website.  You, being a person with (I hope) at least a very basic level of editorial judgment, would treat that website exactly like you would treat the Aryan Nations website:  it is a questionable source.
 * Having glanced over your contributions, I suspect, though, that your concerns aren't with actual extremist views. I suspect they're with WP:FRINGE views.  A group like National Coalition for Mental Health Recovery isn't an extremist group.  You would be hard-pressed to find any source that calls them or any similar organization an extremist group.  (To be clear:  extremist groups have formed around psychiatric issues, just like extremist groups have formed around food, water, and other issues.  But no psychiatry-related groups actually similar to the NCMHR are considered extremist groups, just like no environment-related groups actually similar to The Nature Conservancy are considered extremist groups.)  However, just because the NCMHR isn't an extremist doesn't mean that we will be re-writing articles to reflect their minority viewpoint.  It's not necessary for us to declare NCMHR to be extremist to find it less useful than most other kinds of sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, please justify why you are suddenly inserting your personal opinion and characterisation of my contributions elsewhere - it does not appear to be considered good practice as per talk page guidelines, it's patronising and it's not accurate - so what's motivating you to do that? Why would you want to suddenly speculate (suspect as you put it) that I have some specific motive beyond what I've already stated? Do you think it's right to use my hard work on Wikipedia to make assumptions or implications about what I really mean when I try to contribute to Wikipedia policy? For the record, this is the second time WhatamIdoing has done this with regard to myself, last time was when I tried to contribute to discussions about a medical style guideline and the sudden characterization then was "I know you are heavily involved in antipsychiatry'. I objected then as per guidelines and refused to dignify it with a response at to its accuracy, which got me nowhere so I just gave up and left Wikipedia.


 * Why are you lecturing about the difference between questionable sources and fringe views, when I specifically clarified at the start that I was not talking about due weight issues but about what I said - a principled point about what is the supposed connection between type of view expressed, and editorial oversight. Why are you suddenly talking about some mental health organisation as if that's somehow specifically related to me and therefore this?


 * The only actually relevant point you make here, also appears to be wrong - you are suddenly talking about self-published websites which I believe are already questionable sources. The issue here is precisely not with that, but with what are the grounds (or rules of thumb) for assuming a lack of editorial oversight in publications that would otherwise not be questionable, based on the type of views they express. EverSince (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your contributions are public. It is perfectly reasonable for any other editor to assume that your interest in a particular policy point is a practical one, i.e., a reason related to your editing.  I thought it would be relevant to point out that "extremist" does not apply to certain types of sources that you might encounter, especially since you seem to be struggling with what is, as far as everyone else is concerned, a concept so simple that it requires no explanation:  A phrase like "widely acknowledged" in a sourcing policy always means "widely acknowledged by other reliable sources".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suspect that how I seem to you should be kept to personal conversations with others here. As to the point about content now made, I just googled 'acknowledged extremist' and a Wikipedia user page was the top result (de-indent to try and address consensually):

Apparently a retired editor collected some of the debates around this back in 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Itayb/Extremist_sources Haven't read all of the links to archives but, beyond the repeated conflating of different policy issues, there seems to be some similar dissatisfaction and ambiguity over the process and substance of this policy issue, including:

"in some of the articles I edit the term "extremist" gets thrown out about any minority group that disagrees" &  "the term "extremist" is still useful, though imprecise, because in fact there is often agreement among editors of a given article on who is an extremist" & "The use of "extremist" here is construed narrowly, and is generally applied to groups, such as Stormfront, that have demonstrated wanton disregard for any norms of intellectual honesty in debate"

Apparently this policy statement has previously been "Widely acknowledged extremist political or religious websites — for example, those belonging to Stormfront, Hamas, or the Socialist Workers Party — should never be used as sources for Wikipedia" And it pointed out that the latter might be widely considered extremist in the US but not necessarily in the UK.

It seems the statement has since been tightened up to refer to publications that wouldn't otherwise meet criteria for being questionable, but which express extremist views. And I'd just be interested in any views on whether that might be more explicitly justified. Eversense 21:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A possible re-write of the lede
Given the comments since the RfC closed, would this re-write of the lede be a potential way forward:

Please focus more on broad concept and less on exact wording (I am sure my wording is not perfect... this is a first draft, not a final proposal). It may not resolve all of the concerns people have raised, but I think it would move us in the right direction. Your thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks excellent to me. There is still the issue with the requirement that sources shoud "directly support the material", but that was an issue with the previous proposal as well. I think that this has to wait until after one has dealt with the "not truth" issue. Count Iblis (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my hope was that my rewrite would resolve that issue... by moving the sentence, and thus placing it in context. Blueboar (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not really see the value of the first paragraph here. Shouldn't we just start with a definition of what verifiability is rather than how it relates to other policies. Yoenit (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability is arguably the most important of the three, for the concept of verifiability underlies the other two.

I believe, if I'm correctly reading the editorial tealeaves, you can safely strike "arguably". JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "concept of" sounds a bit wishy, washy. Either it is the most important or it isn't in which case it should be a fact not a concept. Leaky  Caldron  16:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps?...
 * Verifiability is the most important of the three as it is the foundation which underlies both WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view.
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work. I'll need to be careful here, getting involved in changes to the lead that I disagree with! ;) Leaky  Caldron  17:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in an above section, V can create a non-NPOV so no, I don't agree with that statement and would oppose it if it was contained. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  17:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...getting involved in changes to the lead that I disagree with!
 * I'm quite content with the status quo as, apparently, are the vast majority of Wikipedia contributing editors. While I see no pressing need for language revision, I don't have a problem with new language that doesn't substantively, IMHO, change current core policy. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Broadly speaking, I agree with the criticism that the lead should start with what V is, not with a discussion of how it relates to other policies, but I also support the general approach of working within the lead. A suggestion I've made before and will doubtless keep making is to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence, where we already tried to reinvent the wheel, and use that as a starting point, upon which to improve. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? The largest RFC in Wikipedia history comes out at 62% support for a specific change and this is understood as "the vast majority are content with the status quo"?  I'm watching this discussion with increasing disbelief and incredulity because I think it shows so little comprehension of what editors have plainly told you. I suggest that the next RFC should explicitly ask editors about the question of principle: whether VNT should (1) remain unchanged within the lede, (2) be explained within the lede, (3) move to a separate section where it can be explained more fully, or (4) be rephrased such that the policy doesn't contain those words at all.— S Marshall  T/C 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe your feelings of astonishment reflect your own misreadings. And maybe your proposed RfC should include (5) please, no more RfCs about this. But I actually agree with you that the past RfC clearly did not demonstrate contentment with the status quo. It is very clear that the community wants to see VNT improved upon. There just wasn't quite consensus for that proposal, and there wasn't consensus for having a separate section outside of the lead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's me who's misreading then such an RFC would disabuse me of my strange and heretical notions and leave you lot free to continue reaching whatever conclusion it is that you're heading towards here without further interference. :)— S Marshall  T/C 22:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The largest RFC in Wikipedia history comes out at 62% support for a specific change and this is understood as "the vast majority are content with the status quo"?
 * Assuming a population of active Wikipedia editors numbering significantly higher than 444, it is not unreasonable to suggest that those who offered "no opinion" must be assumed to have no particular concern with the existing policy language. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jake, I've got to ask. If I start an AfD on something, but only 444 people !vote in the AfD even though thousands must have seen it, then should we keep it because those who didn't vote must be assumed to have no concern with the article?  If I start an RFA for someone, and thousands of people see it, but only 444 people !vote, then should the bureaucrat refuse to promote them because those who didn't !vote must be assumed not to approve of the promotion?— S Marshall  T/C 00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I start an AfD on something, but only 444 people !vote in the AfD even though thousands must have seen it, then should we keep it because those who didn't vote must be assumed to have no concern with the article?
 * No, it should be deleted...assuming, of course, that the strength of the majority argument (not the "vote" tally) was, in the closing determination, found to be the more persuasive. However, you could legitimately posit that those who neglected to voice an opinion were ambivalent as to either a keep or delete determination.
 * If I start an RFA for someone, and thousands of people see it, but only 444 people !vote, then should the bureaucrat refuse to promote them because those who didn't !vote must be assumed not to approve of the promotion?
 * No, the promotion determination will generally be predicated upon the voting tally with the possible exception of a persuasive case being made either for or against promotion or rejection. However, you could legitimately posit that those who neglected to voice an opinion were ambivalent as to either a promote or reject determination. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right. So from that analogy, we see that the only conclusion you can draw from those who didn't participate in the RFC is that they didn't care whether it succeeded.  Silence does not imply consent when you don't !vote.  See?— S Marshall  T/C 20:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See?
 * Not by a long shot. However, what I do "see" is me moving on from this dead issue, like the vast majority of other respondees. I'd suggest you do so as well. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I LOVE this lead, especially the part that V underlies NPOV. I was advocating that concept, but haven't heard anyone else say it before.   Be— —Critical  21:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @BlueBoar. While there is at least some momentum, it might be an idea to update the proposal with any minor suggestions which seek to improve clarity without altering the structure. Leaky  Caldron  22:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd certainly be happy with a consensus of this lead as is, but would prefer "Verifiability is arguably the most important of the three, for the concept of verifiability underlies the other two" just be removed.
 * All concepts are important, not particular need to rank them.
 * Verifiability certainly underlies WP:OR but does not prevent WP:UNDUE -- it's quite easy to have a verifiable POV article. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 23:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * V in the broader sense underlies UNDUE: V is about scholarship, and cherry picking sources is against the concept of V overall. WEIGHT should really be in this article.  Be— —Critical  00:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is why I used the word "assess" in discussing how V relates to NPOV. To know if information is presented with a neutral POV, we need to look at the various sources, figure out who says what, and assess how much weight to give each viewpoint.  If we do this correctly, the article will in fact be written from a NPOV.
 * See where you're coming from and cool with the reasoning. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Leaky, I would be happy to incorporate minor suggestions that are not immediately objected to... but other than perhaps the removal of "arguably" I am not seeing any (yet)... as to removing "arguably", I would be hesitant about that change myself... without the hedge word "arguably", I think we might give someone the idea that Verifiability "trumps" NPOV and NOR, when the point is that the three work in tandem). Blueboar (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would contend that a policy should be as unequivocal as possible. "arguably" introduces uncertainty - arguably! ;) Leaky  Caldron  00:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Leaky here, if the sentence is gonna be there it shouldn't be some semi wish washy thing. If we believe V underlies OR and NPOV, the logically it is the most important of the three. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I put this out in Wikipedia space: Why NPOV? Be— —Critical  01:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(od) What I don't understand is why a large rewrite is necessary? My impression, from the RfC, is that the phrase 'verifiability, not truth" is both contentious as well as unclear. But, at the same time, a substantial number of editors are unwilling to see 'truth' (or rather, not truth) disappear from the lede. Given that, a simple change that removes the phrase itself but leaves 'truth' in place might just do the trick. Along the lines of what someone had put in earlier The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. The rest of the lede includes everything, and reasonably clearly, the material in the quotation at the top of this section. At best, the last para, ''Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.'' could be moved up if it is felt that editors will be unclear that other policies might apply. --regentspark (comment) 01:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That proposal for the first sentence is too elegant, simple and effective. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No need to be a cynic North... :) (although with what has happened around here I don't blame you)Crazynast 03:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, RegentsPark, that's the way forward I suggested, oh, fourteen months ago now. I've never understood why anyone would object to it.— S Marshall T/C 07:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In that change, we say exactly the same thing in a way that is no more or less clear. But the meme is lost.  Thus, there is no advantage, and there is a disadvantage.   Be— —Critical  09:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The meme is lost" is not a disadvantage. --FormerIP (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that it FAR more clear in the crucial area, the area that is so often mis-interpreted. North8000 (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So a basic disagreement, and a compromise would be to keep the meme but explain it better. Be— —Critical  14:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. I've always thought that the phrase was quite clear but, after reading the reams of opinion in the RfC, I think explaining the meaning is going to be less than easy because the word 'truth' has no clear meaning when used as a noun. However, when used as an adjective in the form of "what you believe to be true", the meaning is quite clear. While the phrase is a catchy one, and has been handy in fighting POV warriors, it might just be time to ditch it and move on. --regentspark (comment) 15:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed.— S Marshall T/C 16:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * VnT is not a meme, "citation needed" is recognized as a meme concerning our concept of verifiability, but nobody has even heard of VnT outside wikipedia. Try or wp:PROVEIT if you are desperate for some catchphrase against TRUTH(tm) warriors. Yoenit (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's another excellent effort by Blueboar. Kudos. -- J N  466  03:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regentspark's subsequent version seems even better to me. The only downside I can see is that it retains "threshold".— S Marshall  T/C 07:44, 22 ''December 2011 (UTC)
 * S Marshal (and others)... while you may prefer some other version, do you object to what I have suggested? Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it'll gain consensus for several reasons. (1) The lede should start with a clear definition of verifiability, your rewrite doesn't do that. (2) it relegates truth to the second para, my impression from the RfC was that this was a main sticking point for many of those who commented. I suggest interchanging the first two paras of your lede if you want to retain "verifiability, not truth". As a personal point, I'd also drop the 100% before the accurate - but that's just a nit. Also, I'm beginning to think it is time for the phrase itself to go, perhaps changing the first para to remove the phrase but retain "believe to be true" should be an independent initial RfC, but that's a separate issue. --regentspark (comment) 17:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the proposal at the top of the section, why such a big change? It's as if one is trying to write an unsuccessful proposal, which obviously isn't the intent. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Verifiability and truth not at odds
After the RFC closure, I was originally going to go off on a rant about how the "consensus" requirement has ossified into a rigid supermajority rule that means nothing will ever change. But then I thought about the wording more and realized where I think the problem lies. The current wording sets up verifiability at odds with truth – as if we knew what the truth was and for some perverse reason refused to print it. But this is exactly wrong. We should start by asking ourselves: what is truth, and how do we determine it? Remember that Wikipedians are not experts and we cannot rely on Wikipedian self-reporting on just about anything. Given this, it would seem more accurate to say that verifiability is how we determine what is true – or at least what is likely enough to approximate the truth as to be worth inclusion in articles. The emphasis should be on the fact that we value reliable sources above the individual opinions of anonymous Wikipedians, not because we don't care about the truth, but because the former are more likely to be true. *** Crotalus *** 18:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the page... :). Crazynast 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But the point is a good one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, for 19 minutes the lead included This has traditionally been described as verifiability, not truth, meaning not that Wikipedia publishes "verifiable" falsehoods; rather it seeks truth through verifiability.Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 23:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, it's probably futile to even venture a suggestion, but how's this for a suggestion for the first sentence:
 * The most important threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Rather than relying upon individual editors to determine what is or is not "true," Wikipedia instead depends on publication in reliable sources as its measurement of accuracy.
 * We could then go on to discuss how to reconcile the situation when reliable sources disagree (referencing WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT), and discuss how we determine what is and is not a reliable source. *** Crotalus *** 17:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact is that we do sometimes refuse to publish what we personally know to be both true and relevant. If you have private information about your employer, for example, that proves some sentence in the company's article is wrong, then you simply may not publish the truth on Wikipedia.  If the truth has not been published in the real world, then it must not be published on Wikipedia, with zero exceptions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that we need to emphasize that that verifiability and truth are not at odds, and that it is not a matter of verification instead of truth. But we should (I think) also emphasize that verifiability alone (that is, verifiablity of publication) is no guarantee of truth; it is only the first step in seeking truth. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This gets very simple if you dissect it logically. The operative statement is that verifiability is required, and "not truth" gives one example of the infinite list of things that do not create an exception. 95% would agree that the intent of "not truth" is to bolster the operative statement by explicitly rejecting a common claim ("but it's true" type statements) for an exception. Opponents of "not truth" say that it is unnecessary and/or that it does more harm than good via. unintended consequences. That's pretty well it. North8000 (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's a different approach. The page is addressed to the individual editor, not the project as a collective. Its message is: "You shouldn't demand that other editors personally convince you of the truth of every statement included in the article before you are willing to go along with them. Rather, you should check those statements' verifiability and then carry on working on the rest of the article. If you think an untrue statement is sneaking past this test, don't argue merely that it is untrue or that you are unconvinced of it; rather, go out and find verifiable sources of different views." —FOo (talk) 08:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by that. THIS policy is about verifiability as a requirement for inclusion.   But on your later point, the more implausible an erroneous statement is, the less likely that there is a source that addresses and refutes it. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...the more implausible an erroneous statement is, the less likely that there is a source that addresses and refutes it.
 * This contingency would have a host of already WP-incorporated policy process hurdles it would have to cross...commencing with the most obvious, editorial consensus, and is decidedly non-problematical. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not true. If people like the implausible erroneous statement (e.g. because it's impression supports their point of view)(and even if they know it is false and make make NO argument that it is not false)  they can and do argue on two tracks to keep it in:  #1 Telling others that their remedy is to find a RS that refutes it.   RS's do not generally address implausible claims.  #2 They say that claims of falsity can't enter into the discussion about potentially omitting false material because "not truth" says that falseness is irrelevant in a discussion about possibly leaving out material. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ...they can and do argue on two tracks to keep it in: #1...#2...
 * Neither of which will survive either #1. Editorial consensus or (if needs be) #2. RfC or (if needs be) #3 an appropriate WP:Noticeboard process. That being said and if your position has merit, please make your case via cited examples demonstrating articles which you purport to be currently hosting objectionable content which has survived this existing process. I, for one, would be interested in taking a look. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the article Tea Party movement the  "Paulites" have a Jeffersonian, "neo-isolationist" approach"   this about followers of a person who's philosophy is to open trade with Cube.  I think that arguments #1 and #2 were used to keep it in through about 20,000 words of discussion, long enough to get the opposing sid4e to throw up their hands a leave, and the phrase is still in there.  Please take it as a partial illustration of the point rather than doing this: User:North8000/Page2, (not that you would) d North8000 (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not being familiar with the evolution of the article, the content you cite (without venturing into issues perhaps reflected in the talk page discussion related to its inclusion) appears, on its face, to be a germane and ATTRIBUTED "opinion" as expressed by a reputable scholarly source. I'm unclear how this example demonstrates the incorporation of content that would even require rebuttal or refutation.  It is an expression of "opinion", clearly designated as such, not an expression of "fact".  Can you be more specific as to how this content might be characterized as an "implausible" or "false" claim and on what sourcing that alleged determination is made? JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your additional reference to User:North8000/Page2, in matters of POLICY revision to correct an alleged systemic problem, your rationale, IMHO, must be succinct, easily demonstrable and convincing. I see no way to make that case other than by examining instances which you purport to clearly demonstrate your premise.  Blueboar started that ball rolling and, if your case for a "problem" is to be effectively made, that appears to be the viable path, tedious though it may be. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We did that extensively during the discussion of the last 12 months. North8000 (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You may well have. Unfortunately they're not accessible as a body of evidence easily referenced for further discussion/examination. IMHO, you'll need to re-support your case via some reference-friendly methodology which facilitates that examination. Blueboar's "list" appears to be the only viable approach thus far worth pursuing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is sort of sidebar to the article so it can be treated separately. It was basically an erroneous implication made about Paul's philosophy made by an overall reasonable quality source. So, if you take the sentence as be a statement about what the source said, it is literally true, e.g. "John Smith said that the moon is made of green cheese" can be an 100% accurate statement (about what he said)    But the implied statement about Paul is clearly a factual error, i.e. something that misleads/misinforms readers. Most impartial folks would agree that it's probably best to leave that particular statement out of the article. And a conversation between editors should have been able to discuss the accuracy/inaccuracy of the implied statement whihc would inevitably led to determining that it was false.  (NOBODY argued that it was accurate) But instead, the desire of some editors to see it remain (reason: anything that sounds bad about Ron Paul is good) combined with chants derived via easily-misrepresented policies blocked that progress. Namely:


 * Potential falsity was excluded from consideration in the discussion, basically saying the "not truth" means that inaccuracy of a statemetn is irrelevant.
 * The "transcription monkey" argument. "Our job is not to think, it is to transcribe sources, thinking is against policy"  type arguments. And in this case, the idea of Ron Paul (the guy who wants to open trade with Cuba) is so implausible that no RS has addressed it.  If a source erroneously said that 100's of elephants fell from the sky in Phoenix yesterday, could you find a reliable source that refutes that? (without utilizing OR/synthesis?)  North8000 (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for what you are saying? 190.51.146.196 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * i don't know why you say NOBODY. I haven't seen in any newspaper or reliable source that what you are saying suits wikipedia rules, otherwise i'll ask you to stop this madness and to donate some money to wikipedia, at least a hundred bucks, now. 190.51.146.196 (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

By "NOBODY" I meant in that in the real world example, that, in the 10's of thousands of words of discussions, none of the WP editors (even the folks that wanted to keep it in) argued that the implied statement was accurate. The rest of 190.51's post is too incoherent to respond to. North8000 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While I may now have to read through the entire relevant discussion, perhaps you can spare me the agony. Why would it be incumbent upon those supporting the inclusion of this "opinion" to defend it as something more than what it is...an opinion? It appears to satisfy WP criteria in all respects (save for, arguably, WP:UNDUE?).  As I read the existing text, it's not an "implied statement" (whatever that is) either...but rather clearly designated as an "opinion" of an apparently reputable source.  What am I missing here?  JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Where was consensus reached to override WP:PRESERVE?
In reference to this edit, can some one please point me to the discussion where consensus to change WP:PRESERVE was reached? If consensus was reached, why hasn't WP:PRESERVE been changed? Did anyone even notify the editors of Editing policy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You may need to clarify the relevance of PRESERVE, Quest. That guideline seems to have been followed, in that material was not removed, but instead rephrased. --FormerIP (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PRESERVE is a policy, not a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that WP:PRESERVE has been violated either. WP:PRESERVE demands that we "preserve appropriate content", and material that is not "attributable" to a reliable source is inappropriate. Note that it doesn't say "attributed", which is a different thing entirely. To say that something isn't attibutable to a reliable source implies that a check for such a source was made. It really doesn't have to be, though: WP:BURDEN gets involved here as well.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Kww. Preserve is good practice, but editors who add information should be explicitly warned, in the lead, that info without proper citation may be removed.  And repeating it a few times can't hurt.  It was already in the lead/nutshell per very longstanding consensus  and the edit just moved it up from the third paragraph.  Be— —Critical  03:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I see. The objection isn't that the actual edit breaches PRESERVE. I would say it would be fair enough to weaken the wording to something like "may be removed". But this was controversial in the discussion above. Please no-one revert to the prior version though, because it is confusingly worded, which makes it far worse. --FormerIP (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Umm...the part that says "the content in question should often be removed".  This gives editors a false impression.  WP:PRESERVE gives 9 actions preferable than wholesale deletion, none of which has been added to WP:V nor have they been removed from WP:PRESERVE.  I answered your question, now please answer mine:  Can some one please point me to the discussion where consensus to change WP:PRESERVE was reached?  If consensus was reached, why hasn't WP:PRESERVE been changed?  Did anyone even notify the editors of Editing policy?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the spirit of PRESERVE is that you should not wholesale revert, but tweak so as to change the words "should often". Please feel free to do that. --FormerIP (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you please point me to the discussion where consensus was reached? Was there an RfC?  Was anyone notified of the change?  If not, can you please self-revert?  Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Responses in order. Above, in the section headed "consensus". No. No, who should have been? Why would that require a self-revert? --FormerIP (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording so that it doesn't conflict with PRESERVE. --FormerIP (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with this wording, almost. But I'm going to change it to make it of a piece with the normal wording. Be— —Critical  04:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting change here by Crazynas, removing 2/3rds of the "toxic trio" from bold text. What do we think of this change? I could live with it, as a compromise... Doc   talk  04:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Quest, I think you are misreading WP:PRESERVE ... WP:PRESERVE is a balancing act. It does not say we should prefer those 9 alternatives over deletion... it says we should consider them as alternatives. They are all equal alternatives to deletion... but it goes the other way as well... deletion is an equal alternative to any of the 9. We don't prefer one over the other, because the correct solution to a problem depends on the specific problem in a specific article. Blueboar (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nicely put (: Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  07:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In the first sentence of PRESERVE it says: "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." This clearly shows that removal (i.e. deletion) of content should only be considered an alternative if fixing the problem isn't. If the specific problem can be fixed, deletion is not a valid option because it removes content that should be kept. The alternatives listed in said section are alternatives to consider as part of the "fixing" process and this process, as stated earlier, should take precedence over deletion. Regards  So Why  09:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My view is that PRESERVE is for articles and not policy pages. It refers to fixing problems with articles instead of deleting content which might be useful. Also no major content was actually deleted. Mattg82 (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Following on Former IP's earlier edit, I had put in the wording about "should often" (, above), but I can see now that there are good reasons here for the subsequent changes, and those are fine with me. I think what had bothered me before was the way it read when separated into two sentences, but the current wording does a reasonable job of balancing between preserving on the one hand, and removing OR on the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is that we've changed this sentence significantly from the previous version with regards to whether content should be kept or removed. Yes, I read the section above but didn't say anyone talk about WP:PRESERVE. All the policies and guidelines work in tandem with each other. We should not be making changes without regard to how they all work together.

The stable version of the policy reads: To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. Note that this is written in the 'positive form' ("must be attributable"). There is no mention of removing content. This was then changed to say that material should often be removed from the article (contrary to WP:PRESERVE): Material added to articles that is not attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate to the content in question should often be removed, although in practice it is not necessary to attribute everything. The stable version of the sentence makes no mention of removing content; the second does. FormerIP then changed the wording from "should often be removed" to "may be removed" which is, of course, less worse, but less worse is not good enough. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not give inexperienced editors a reason to delete unverified but verifiable content. And yes, a lot of editors don't understand the difference between verified and verifiable (just like a lot of editors don't understand the difference between notable and weight). Editors deleting content simply because something is unsourced (but sourcable but are too lazy to find sources themselves) is an ongoing problem on Wikipedia, and the change in verbiage is only likely to excerbate this problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm honestly not seeing the problem here, unless the problem is several editors having difficulty reading. Let's have a quick quiz:
 * Q: If it is impossible to attribute a given bit of material to a reliable, published source (despite a thorough, good-faith search for sources), you should:
 * remove the material because it violates WP:V and WP:NOR.
 * PRESERVE the unverifi able material anyway.
 * That sentence doesn't say "you should delete anything without a citation". It says "you should delete anything that has never once, in the history of the publishing industry, ever appeared in a single published, reliable source".  This is the difference between "attributABLE" and "attributED".  (And if the folks here are screwing up the reading, then we should probably find a phrasing that is less dependent on noticing the last few letters in the word, like "It must be possible to name a published, reliable source for any material added, although it is not always necessary to actually name a source."   WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The sentence was changed from being agnostic to advocating the deletion of content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was changed to match practically every paragraph in this entire policy, whose whole point is that UNverifiABLE content must be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The emphasis was changed to give an incomplete, and potentially misleading phrasing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * So you believe that UNverifiABLE material should sometimes not be deleted? Do you believe that it's ever okay to add UNverifiABLE material to articles?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Rough check on consensus to unprotect this page
This is purely a seat of the pants' rough check to confirm whether consensus exists to unprotect this page. Those supporting unprotection, please mark on the support section, those opposing in the oppose section, and so on so forth. Wifione  Message 20:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. But lets all take it easy.  North8000 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Crazynast 21:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, it's one of our five pillars. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. It's becoming a farce. We should be relaxed about the idea that it is possible to make minor modifications to a page with talkpage discussion but without a six-month RfC process. Is Wikipedia not able to develop its policy pages in a grown up fashion? --FormerIP (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Not a good time to be leaving the page open to unnecessary drama. Leaky  Caldron  20:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If everyone could follow WP:BRD, I'd be happy to support this. Unfortunately, that's not the situation here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please continue the protection. Core policies need to be stable, and there are simply too many editors who are champing at the bit to show off their personal tweaks that would only get reverted again. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Unprotection is only likely to lead to further drama, not to solutions. We don't really even have a rough consensus on the general direction of changes that need to be made, and we're not showing a whole lot of thoughtfulness about amendments and reversions right now.  In at least one case, I'm seriously wondering whether the reverting editor even read the actual words that he was reverting.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * WP:AGF is probably a good to believe people won't start edit warring, but given how divisive this is, perhaps an extended FP is good. Ultimately I don't care because if edit warring starts, it'll be swiftly locked down again. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  21:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Standards for handling publisher location in citations
I've proposed a consistent WP:CITE standard for how to specify the publisher location in citations, at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. It takes better account of the WP:systemic bias problem than the practices recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style, and other style guides, which seem to always assume that the reader is a well-educated Westerner very familiar with American and European geography. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 21:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to Regentspark's suggestion
This from a closer of the RFC, and it would be a strong support from me.— S Marshall T/C 17:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm open to working with this, and seeing where it goes. In my opinion, we can take some of the language that was well-received in the previous RfC, add it to what you and RP have above, and make it more attractive to a wider portion of the community:

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I love sentences 1, 3 and 4. Sentence 2 is redundant with sentence 1 and could, I suspect, be trimmed (maybe to just the bit after the semicolon)?— S Marshall  T/C 17:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully expected the comments below, and I think they ought to be taken seriously. The purpose of sentence 2 is to emphasize what VNT has typically said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * S2 is critical to reinforcing and balance. Little chance of success without it. Leaky  Caldron  22:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Modified from above... retains the phrase, but explains and contextualizes it. Cheers. Crazynast 01:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Modified from above... retains the phrase, but explains and contextualizes it. Cheers. Crazynast 01:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 02:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I it too! Since we're all cats who are difficult to herd, here is my attempt to tweak it a bit more:


 * Whether or not my tweak really is an improvement, I believe that we are moving in the right direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re the part in parentheses, "especially whether specific material is included in a specific article" — What is this supposed to mean or add to the sentence? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I recollect correctly, it was originally created by Blueboar, in order to differentiate between material within an article, versus deciding whether an article as a whole should be kept. Personally, I don't feel strongly about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "in order to differentiate between material within an article, versus deciding whether an article as a whole should be kept." — That's what it means? Looks like you're as clueless as me. Maybe just delete it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggested this language to highlight the fact that the appropriateness and acceptability of a specific bit of verifiable material often depends on which article someone wants to add it to. As an example: the fact that George Washington was the first President of the United States is extremely verifiable ... but I think most people would agree that it would be inappropriate to mention this verifiable fact in an article on Particle physics. It might (or might not) be appropriate to mention this fact in an article on Benjamin Franklin ... and it should be mentioned in the article on the office of President of the United States.  The assessment of Reliability, Due Weight (and the other policy/guideline concepts that affect inclusion/exclusion) depends on context... they are rarely an "Always Yes" vs. "Always No" type of thing.  There is a lot of "It depends... Sometimes yes but at other times no". Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re part of proposal, "If the material is unverifiable, do not add it, regardless of how convinced you are of its truth. In that sense, Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth." — In the second sentence, the part about Wikipedia not requiring truth, does not go with the first sentence which says that truth is not sufficient . --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Why would this be successful when the previous RfC wasn't?
The previous RfC, which proposed to move "verifiability, not truth" from the first sentence to another part of the policy page, was blocked by a minority of editors that didn't want it moved from the first sentence. This suggestion proposes to eliminate "verifiability, not truth" from the policy page altogether. Why do you think this has a better chance than the previous RfC? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really like Regent's language... but I have to agree with Bob on this... A lot of people are insistent on keeping the phrase "Verifiability, not Truth" in the policy, and want it in the lede. If we are going to get a consensus, I think that exact phrase will have to be used. I really think we should think in terms of moving it (to another part of the lede) and explaining it, not replacing it. Blueboar (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea of combining a large RFC combined with all of the invented stuff that has been added to it means that such is an absolutely dysfunctional method here. We need to move forward via some other method. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It could succeed because not everyone who opposed the RFC, opposed because of VNT. Some of them opposed for quite different reasons.  It's true that you can't have a compromise that satisfies both the VNT-must-be-included and the VNT-must-be-removed crowd.  There's a simple choice: include it or not?  More editors want it gone than want to keep it, so let's try removing that phrase and making no other changes.  It's like the Occam's razor of edits...— S Marshall  T/C 19:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * And yet, not to be annoying or anything, the suggestion which could gain consensus and eliminate all the major problems isn't considered. The major problems are those of misinterpretation or POV pushing. The minor problems are stylistic.  But adding a footnote with a full explanation of VnT would eliminate the major problems.  And BTW, this is the Occam's razor of edits.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we'd add a footnote explaining a phrase that doesn't actually appear in regentspark's suggestion.— S Marshall T/C 20:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I tend to think a footnote would bring the worst of both worlds: it wouldn't satisfy the members of the community who want VNT in the main text, and it wouldn't satisfy those who want it entirely removed. I think that Bob and Blueboar make good points about satisfying those members of the community who want to keep VNT in the main text of the lead, but also giving it more nuance, making it less of a slogan. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to keep the text as it is, and put in a footnote explaining it. That is something which can actually be accepted easily, and will leave the people who want VnT removed with only stylistic reasons for removal.  That may not be what they want or are willing to accept, however, it addresses their main substantive reasons for removal aside from style.  It is thus a good compromise and it's so minimalist as to be acceptable.  In some sense, this is a test as to whether this debate is about substance.  If the chance of misinterpretation is removed from the debate, we can see whether any compromise is really possible or desired, and whether this is about policy or style.  We could even put in the footnote as a temporary measure.  Then we could discuss style, while feeling secure that any misunderstanding of the text by editors can easily be resolved by reference to the footnote.  I was told that any compromise that leaves VnT in place wasn't acceptable.  Well, why?  Style?  Substance?  If substance, then the footnote should be an acceptable compromise.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK, I misunderstood. Sure, I think that's something we could work with. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We already know it's about style rather than substance. Blueboar's compromise explained the substance absolutely perfectly, and achieved a landslide majority at RFC, but was rejected by a small number of obstructive editors largely because it didn't contain the exact phrase they wanted.— S Marshall  T/C 22:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But you're the one who said you wouldn't compromise leaving it in. If this is all about style, then let's just leave it and put in a footnote: taste in writing is not sufficient reason to argue over something like this.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It might have a better chance of succeeding because it still contains a direct reference to the policy point that editors cannot just add something they believe to be true. Truth had completely disappeared from the first para of the lede in the original and, I think, that was the sticking point for a number of editors. --regentspark (comment) 23:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd be happy with something that eliminates the mis-interpretations. Like the sentence:
 * " "Not truth" in this policy means that truth is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. "
 * Placed in the first paragraph. North8000 (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Off topic hat

 * But I have no confidence in subjecting whatever we come up with to the corrupted construction that the original RFC was subjected to. A screwed up confluence of "large scale required" with "consensus required", to someone reinventing the rules when they didn't like the result, to somebody "interpreting" that a landslide is not a "consensus."  We need to changes something or use a different method. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first entry was a glimmer of hope towards compromise. Your second entry was less encouraging. Have any of you ever seen a "controversial" call in any sporting match in your lives? Does whining about it change that call, or the result of that call, in the scope of the entire "match"? Are we still going to bring up the ancient "Sarek vs. SV" thing, or the numbers in favor of the RfC that was deemed to have no consensus? There was no landslide. What happened, happened. There was no corrupted construction that has any basis in proof or fact, and continually alleging this amounts to sour grapes. Doc   talk  23:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doc, nobody who was watching that RFC closely while it happened was satisfied with the process. Sarek determined the consensus and closed the debate correctly.  Then SlimVirgin, an editor amazingly involved because she added the disputed wording in the first place, unilaterally overturned the close because it didn't conform to something she thought she'd agreed on Blueboar's talk page, re-advertised the RFC using non-neutral language, and forced it to a no consensus close.  The fact that she got away with that abuse of process without receiving even a word of censure is still causing me to experience a certain lack of Christmas forgiveness.  We do want reassurance that the process will not be tampered with next time.— S Marshall  T/C 23:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw SV do something like that at cfsn once.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If there was an abuse of process I'm sure there would have been a word of censure. On-wiki (and thus really official and linkable) would have shown it to be a concrete abuse, with diffs and everything. I'd wager there probably was a "stern talking-to", off-wiki, of course. She hasn't been involved as recently as in the past, and hasn't edited the talk page since early November. I wouldn't lose your Christmas forgiveness over something like this, S Marshall. Doc   talk  23:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That was the most brazen assault on the process. But there is also the construction which blocks any real change.  First, modify wp:consensus to remove the "said to be" and make it categorical,  "all changes are made only by a "consensus".  And, then simultaneously say that numbers don't matter while saying that numbers of a impossible-to-achieve super-duper-majority are required.  And then saying that the scope and advertising has to be so immense that it takes 400 man-hours and 3 months for each attempt, anything short of that can have the closure reverted by anyone with a posse if they don't like the result.  And that absent that, the version which clearly has no consensus (11% in the prematurely terminated RFC) gets to stay in there.   This artificial construction of a process is not viable for this. North8000 (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep: 11%, and that would have been the correct number, and so it should have been closed. Who's in this "posse" that keeps getting mentioned? Or is a theoretical one entirely, meant for situations beyond this one? Doc   talk  08:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot believe you lot sometimes. WP:CON isn't a vote, and it's not limited to who is present at the moment of change. There are some accusations against SV here that come close to personal attack. Lighten up. Let it rest. Move on. Eat a mince pie, or check your stockings for presents.. I am going to! 20040302 (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh please. AGF isn't a suicide pact and it doesn't mean turn a blind eye to the blindingly obvious.  Who's the posse?  It's accounts like Crum375 which having made six edits in the last twelve months are reactivated for discussions like this one, and users like Will Beback who never knowingly disagree with SV.  The reality is that trying to deal with SlimVirgin doing that is like trying to deal with Malleus Fatuorum using foul language.  She's popular enough and given credit enough for content contributions that no matter what she does in discussion, there will always be an organised band of users who show up to defend her. The filibustering and consensus engineering and stalling that have gone on on this page is disappointing, and it's continuing with that contemptible vote against unprotection.  "Drama", forsooth: it could be avoided so easily by submitting to the majority view, but no, it has to be avoided by suppressing the majority view and preventing change using software tools.  Pathetic.— S Marshall  T/C 11:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to find a way other than the specially-misconstructed-system that has been used here. Maybe whatever develops a good consensus in talk here we just put in. Or whatever version enjoys the most support is what it becomes. (after a runoff to get it down to two).   For those who pretend that the the misconstruction is a "rule", we can call wp:iar to them, even though it actually isn't. North8000 (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I find your rhetoric more and more insulting. You and S. Marshall both. SV hasn't edited in almost two months, yet you keep attacking her. There is no "majority view" here, there is only Consensus.  Which a number of editors, including both of you, don't seem to understand.  Dreadstar  ☥   02:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * People who know me know that I put myself into the breech, close the bolt and pull the trigger when some person or persons corrupts the process. If we don't have a workable process, we have nothing.  I see this as a painful duty, not a personality defect. Several times in real life organizations I have gone to war with close allies because they did that.  Whether you agree or not, it is useful to at least know/understand where I'm coming from on that. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? What do you mean "gone to war", exactly? You're not talking about this, right? This isn't supposed to be a war. War is disruptive. Doc   talk  12:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I said I was talking about some real world situations (not Wikipedia), and to illustrate where I'm coming from. But responding, IMO Slim changed it from a civilized RFC into an uncivilized war. And roses don't stop missiles.   I said the previous sentences ONLY to let folks know where I'm coming from. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Your continuing carping about a past decision in relation to this policy change proposal which you have been working on for more than half of your 2 years as an editor has passed the point of “fair comment”. You are wikilawyering and are refusing to "get the point" – WP:HEAR – a direct breach of policy relating to disruptive editing. Please stop before someone takes the time to refer your behaviour for wider community consideration. You cannot re-write the history of a decision taken 2 months ago. Leaky Caldron  12:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Following this gesture of good will directly prior to the last comment here from North8000 sort of reminds one of the, "It's business, not personal" cliche. But business has not been so good recently. The older accusations concerning SV are tiring and pointless, and they really need to stop, as they have no bearing at this moment. Doc   talk  13:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's start a two step RFC on Regentspark's proposal
I suggest we do this in two steps. In the first RFC we don't specifically ask for people to support/oppose, rather we ask people to seriously consider the proposal and ask for comments. They may well say that they do or don't support this, but it's only the reasons why they would support or oppose it that we're after. This also has the effect of the wider Wiki community getting involved and then less likely to reject it in a knee jerk way. Then we can consider all the comments, implement some modifications if necessary, and start the second RFC where we ask people if they support or oppose the latest proposal. I would suggest we take a lot of time for the first RFC, discussing with as many of the participants as possible. Count Iblis (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dolling this out in a 2-part RfC is a bad idea. It is bad no matter what proposal it is. First, it can anger and confuse people who thought the first RfC was enough to get the point across. Second, it can be seen as rather pointless if the second RfC is basically asking them the same thing, but add a support/oppose to it. Finally, it needlessly drags out the process. The same result can be achieved if the RfC is done in a way that asks people who support/oppose/neutral to give a reason why so that there can be a clearer understanding of what consensus is or could be. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  04:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose what I read in this is that the first section would be asking community input on a fluid proposal (more then those foolish persistent editors that insist on discussing it). Part two would be a concrete change that we're asking everyone permission to modify our holy book.  The problem with a formal RFC, is if you start mucking with the consensus version half way through the first set of editors (support and oppose) are somewhat invalid since they were (supporting or opposing) a different proposal. Wikipedia has the committee meeting and the full house vote occurring simultaneous (which makes it confusing for the best us).  I would support this in principle if it is made clear that part one is a workshop (not binding resolution).  Crazynast 08:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * All good ideas. But I still think that the process that the previous big proposal was subjected to is not viable.  Some other process is needed. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest systematically reviewing the comments in the last large RfC and see what applies here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Crazynas/verifiability_rfc, got mostly through the support votes, haven't started on the opposes yet. (all are welcome to chip in if you find it useful...) Crazynast 20:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Applause for Crazynas for taking this on! As you sort through it, I (and I suspect others as well) will be quite interested in how many of the supporters would actually oppose a proposal with VNT still in the lead (in some form), and how many of the opposers would switch to support in the same instance. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would certainly would not oppose a proposal that contained VNT in the lede. I think it should be moved out of the first sentence, but it is obvious to me that the only way to reach a consensus is to keep it somewhere in the lede.
 * As for Crazynas's systematic review... I also applaud... Although, I am a little confused as to why Crazynas categorizes my comment (as the proposer) under "Unqualified" support, and not under support "as Compromise"... since I thought I had made it clear in both my comment and in the rational that the entire point of the proposal was to find a compromise position. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also applaud Crazynas's review, but I think that they are going to have a hard time deriving that information out of the comments. North8000 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yea it's good. I do think it does help somewhat. For example, those who wanted it to go further can probably be counted on opposing anything that includes "not truth" in the lead. As for the others, a brief glance at the compromise and tweak supporters sees about 4-10 who might not support "not truth" left in while 3-5 who would likely not support it if its removed. I didn't go through the long list of those who are listed as unqualified. I'll note that among those who supported it but wanted tweaks, the 3 reoccruing themese were the issue with the word "threshold", "martial" and "information". ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  07:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is so complex that it has become intractable. Possible a questionnaire of active participants here would provide a bit of a guide on the core question. Something like:


 * Regarding "verifiability not truth" being in the first sentence of the policy, please tell us what your gut feel is at this moment:


 * Question #1, In 30 words or less, how would you ideally prefer that this end up?


 * Question #2 In 60 words or less, what is the farthest from your answer to question #1 that you would be willing to accept as a compromise? What are the things you feel most important to be included in the compromise?

North8000 (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That might actually be a viable non-binding RfC question also, except I expect the word limit would be completely ignored by many. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They could put the rest of the words down in the discussion section. The brevity in the answers forces a succinct summary of their preference and position.  While this is small step, I think that really learning this would be a small step towards a conclusion rather than in circles. North8000 (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Update
Since there's been so much discussion this quarter, I'm hesitant to jump in and do the usual description of the changes this quarter ... I think I'll leave it for some other brave soul. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Full Protection December 21
Why is it that some editors seem compelled to post revisions to this policy without first broaching the subject in talk for some discussion towards consensus? What is it with this compulsion to first see your suggested edits in the article inviting the obvious plausibility of edit warring? It's rather astonishing actually. This is a POLICY page for gawd's sake. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know from before that it's your POV that people should always discuss first, but that's not really necessary, per BRD. And BTW my revert was different because of the unusual way the paragraph got taken out, first edited beyond recognition and then taken out because of the way it was edited.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The page has now been locked indefinitely...a rather rueful reflection of the editorial behavior being evidenced since the closure of the RfC. There's a message here that will, hopefully, be absorbed by all. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been locked until 29th December, not "indefinitely", in an unhelpful and overdramatic response to the behaviour of a small number of editors.— S Marshall T/C 14:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting also that the page was locked eight hours after the last edit and the protecting administrator protected it with the comment of edit warring without commenting on the talk page (textbook irony). I wonder how long until there's an ANI thread about not enough bold in the lead, FWIW any administrators that can actually read, revert through the FP to the write version at your discretion, you have my consent (not that this will save anything queens will have their dramha.Crazynast 18:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As the protecting admin, my protection reason was as follows: "Edit warring / Content dispute: directly after expiry of prior page protection. Please avoid edit warring on policy pages." I'm not sure what else you're expecting me to say. I have zero desire to become involved in whatever dispute/drama is going on, so if you have a version of the page that's clearly already supported by consensus, please use and an uninvolved admin will be by to revert back to it.  If, prior to the expiry, there's consensus that the edit war is over, I can unprotect the page, but there should be some pretty compelling evidence given the fact that the edit war resumed directly after the last protection expired.  -- slakr  \ talk / 19:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that you and JakeinJoisey are both confusing a high frequency of BRD editing with an edit war. Edit wars are when people keep adding and removing the same content, you see.— S Marshall  T/C 20:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In any case, I assure you that if the "high-frequency BRD editing" (HFBRDE) continues after this protection expires, it will be protected again and/or editors blocked, probably with the summary "edit warring," since there isn't yet a policy page for HFBRDE. I'd therefore highly suggest against personally engaging in HFBRDE, as it will likely result in consequences similar to those of edit warring. -- slakr  \ talk / 20:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But editors are not following WP:BRD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Slakr, Re "I'm not sure what else you're expecting me to say." — Could you give here all the specific diffs  which  are the edit warring that you are referring to?  Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't threaten me, Slakr. It wouldn't be appropriate even if I had been engaging in the behaviour you choose to criticise, which I have not, and I don't respond well to threats at the best of times.  The relevant policy page is the one you just linked, and if you read it, EDITWAR does provide for exactly this situation. While it is best if policy pages are relatively stable, equally, long periods of protection build up pressure as people think of edits they want to make, so it's not surprising that edit frequency increases once protection expires.  High frequency editing is not a problem.  It's only a problem if people war about it, and it takes more than one revert of a particular edit to make a war. A Quest For Knowledge, I do not agree with Be Critical and it was me who reverted his edit, but I don't think that incident warrants a seven day protection.— S Marshall  T/C 21:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, there was no genuine edit warring. There was normal editing process.  I already explained my one revert above which I thought was an exceptional circumstance.  I certainly wouldn't have thought my revert or any of the others would have lead to page protection.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think the protection was a good idea. Too much B without prior D tends to lead to an excess of R, when the page is a core policy page. It's one thing to BRD in a typical article. But core policy shouldn't be changing without consensus, and it's unhelpful to most editors if what they see here seems to keep changing. But I'll note that we very likely now have The Wrong VersionTM. The words "not truth" have been changed from bold to italic. Given the recent RfC and all the rest, even this seemingly small format change might be seen by some editors as fighting words. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Core policy shouldn't be changing without consensus" leads to the utter fossilization of policy pages, because consensus is defined in such a way that it's unachievable. Maybe we should rename it the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, except the policy pages.— S Marshall  T/C 22:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope it didn't sound like I was arguing for fossilization. Plenty of times, a change can be proposed in talk, agreed to in a reasonably brief amount of time, and implemented. That's better than a bold edit that gets reverted. The reason that some big changes (read: VNT) take so long to get consensus is that they haven't gotten consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why (Regarding boldness over discussion)? Sincerely Crazynast 09:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you're the poster child, because you made a bold edit right before the protection took place, and what happened? Now, we're having an extended discussion about whether "not truth" should be bold or italic, while the page stays in a format that does not have clear consensus. (And had the page not been protected, you would surely have been reverted.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) It's apparent that several people are in denial over whether an edit war is taking place and whether they're actually involved in one, so let me help clarify:
 * change
 * revert
 * revert
 * revert
 * revert
 * revert
 * revert
 * revert
 * revert
 * ...and no, reverts don't have to be verbatim to still be considered a revert. If anyone believes I'm wrong in my judgment (and hopefully I am), then you should all be able to come to consensus very quickly on this talk page about which version of the page is acceptable, demonstrate that there's consensus, and then use or request unprotection before the expiration date.
 * Hopefully that helps.
 * -- slakr \ talk / 22:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can do it that way. Overturn page protection to time served.— S Marshall  T/C 23:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what version of the page are you saying that everyone agrees on? Please provide a revision. -- slakr \ talk / 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The thing with this is, no one was genuinely edit warring, it was an edit war but not in the sense of being detrimental, but in the sense of being part of an ongoing negotiation process. The kind of edit wars that protection is supposed to stop are the kind where people are just being angry and nonproductive.  Even if the process didn't get to any conclusions, editing the page was part of real negotiation.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Slakr, welcome to WP:V, where we recently held the largest RFC in Wikipedian history. It came to "no consensus", and if there's one thing we know for sure, it's that there is definitely no version of the page that everyone agrees on.  Just unprotect it, please, to help us get on with constructing some kind of compromise solution.— S Marshall  T/C 23:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (@slakr)So man up and make the padlock red if that is your considered opinion...(Please provide a revision). This here is a bright line (FP), tenured, thoughtful editors either have the prerogative to make constructive, bold changes to policy or they don't(they shouldn't be randomly stopped by another editor who decides his watchlist is getting cluttered and swoops in to save the day ). You rely on the false premise that stability is paramount, not documenting current practice (the purported purpose of this page).  Regards. Crazynast 09:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Slakr, Thanks for the diffs. Here's some detail and summary for your list.


 * change 17:00, 19 Dec —Nobody Ent — lead
 * revert 17:19, 19 Dec — Tryptofish — lead #1. (edit summary: B and now R, so D)
 * revert 17:27, 19 Dec — Bob K31416 — lead #1. (edit summary: Tsk, tsk, To be fair, you need to give a specific reason why a good faith edit isn't acceptable when reverting)
 * revert 18:03, 19 Dec — North Shoreman — #1. lead (edit summary: issue under disussion and no consensus (obviously) for change)
 * revert (This looks like a new change, not revert.) Crazynas — lead. (edit summary: really simple, change to VnT and relink to NOR in 2nd para)
 * revert A Quest for Knowledge — lead #5 + other parts of lead. #1 not involved. (edit summary: Revert undiscussed policy change that violates WP:PRESERVE. Restoring last stable reversion. Seriously, why can't people get consensus on the talk page first before changing policy?)
 * revert FormerIP — lead #6. (edit summary: Reverted good faith edits by A Quest For Knowledge (talk): It's been discussed. Please chime in with your objections. (TW))
 * revert A Quest for Knowledge — lead #6. (edit summary: See talk for forthcoming explanation.)
 * revert Crazynas — lead #5. (edit summary: do not see where "not truth" not being bolded is disputed in talk, italicizing...)


 * Page protection 07:04, 22 Dec — Slakr (edit summary: Changed protection level of Wikipedia:Verifiability: Edit warring / Content dispute: directly after expiry of prior page protection. Please avoid edit warring on policy pages. ([edit=sysop] (expires 07:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC) )

In the above:
 * there were 4 editors that made only one revert each. (2. Tryptofish, 3. Bob K31416, 4. North Shoreman, 7. FormerIP)
 * there was an editor that you listed as making 2 reverts although #5 looks like a new change rather than a revert. (5. 9. Crazynas)
 * there was another editor that made 2 reverts. (6. 8. A Quest for Knowledge)

Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC) Added time/dates for first 4 items and added Slakr protection diff. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also note that I'm not trying to point fingers or make anyone feel like they've personally done something horribly wrong. People disagree on stuff, and the more passionate someone cares about something, the more intense the conflict around it can become. Basically the goal from this point forward is to focus more on what's going on with the content&mdash;not who's changing it. -- slakr  \ talk / 01:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Slakr, I added times/dates to the first 4 diffs in the list and added your page protection diff. As you can see from the first 4 items in your list, the episode lasted less than an hour and  was settled with the policy returning to its original state. Also,  this matter was quickly settled by the involved editors 3 days before you protected the page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So there was no reason to protect, and could you just unprotect? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  06:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just addressing the matter of the first 4 diffs in the list. The rest of the list concerns a different matter which can be discussed after Slakr responds regarding the first 4 items. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Our general active edit warring window is 24 hours, which is the basis for three-revert rule block expiries. Of course, you're free to argue over what you feel is lateness in protecting the page, but it's not going to get me or anyone else to unprotect the page any sooner&mdash;resolving the dispute will, though. Keep in mind that dispute resolution involves arguing with yourselves over content&mdash;something which I have no say in. Instead, I'd suggest that you consider involving yourselves in other discussions on this talk page, including the one below, as it's likely a more productive allocation of your time. -- slakr \ talk / 06:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Slakr, Re your comment "I'd suggest that you consider involving yourselves in other discussions on this talk page, including the one below, as it's likely a more productive allocation of your time." — We did exactly that regarding the first 4 diffs of your list and quickly settled the issue, 3 days before your protection. Regarding the other issue in the remaining diffs, I wasn't involved in those diffs. However, I have joined the discussion below. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This was probably an incorrect protection and now, with your refusal to take input from several editors, seems to be an abuse of admin powers. You have as of now also refused to discuss the matter. Please unprotect the page or get another admin to review your protection of the page.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  07:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you believe I'm in error, feel free to request unprotection. -- slakr \ talk / 07:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * done Crazynast 10:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Slakr, you're verging on IDHT here. It is not appropriate to insist on a bureaucratic process at this point.— S Marshall  T/C 08:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting, folks. Slakr did nothing more wrong than any other genius that thinks they can solve this issue per BRD and not expect to be reverted. Baby steps or the page gets locked. IAR all the way? Move to Somalia if you want total lawlessness. Doc  talk  10:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The events of early November show that we're already in Somalia here. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder and to Slakr for providing a short respite for reflection in this post-RfC environs. JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Implying that this or this or even this are changing the meaning or focus (without consensus) based on that, I would be curious to see what you consider to be a noncontroversial minor edit to improve grammar or clarity to a policy page (this or any other)?  Nice to see, however, you recognize that Slakr was no less bold in his protection than the rest of us were in our bold editing. Crazynast 10:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that it was edit warring. It was more like BRD type work on the wording. Probably a higher level of "B" than many folks would consider appropriate for this particular situation. We really need to find something in between. The version sitting in there at the moment clearly has no consensus, and the one in the main RFC supposedly had no consensus. The process of getting broader input has been "interpreted" in a way that, until fixed, means that the process of requiring a "consensus" in a wide input process is now a completely dysfunctional approach. The "rules" are just vague hints that some have successfully re-interpreted into something that would block any change from occurring. We need something in between as the only practical approach forward. Probably BRD, but not in such a flurry as the recent bout. Like maybe "DBRD"  for this particular case. :-)  And one way of doing that would be a working, editable copy on the talk page and do BRD development work on that, and then from time to time try dropping that result into the actual page. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Any revert beyond beyond WP:BRD is an edit-war. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's an excerpt from the policy on edit warring, Editwar.
 * "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold. A potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed. Another editor may revert it. This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts."
 * I think that the intervening admin may have misunderstood that there was a series of 8 reverts regarding the same irreconcilable matter. Actually, the first matter involving the first 4 diffs was reconciled quickly by the involved editors 3 days before the protection. (See previous discussion.)--Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Slakr did the right thing. And I think some of the editors who seem to be arguing that it isn't 3RR if it's only one revert per editor are entirely missing the point. No one is saying that anyone broke 3RR. A bunch of us (including me) were involved in a series of edits, over time, that changed this core policy, back and forth and back and forth, when none of the changes really had the kind of consensus called for by the closers of the last RfC. I know that changing this page is a hobby for some editors, who are sulking because their toys got taken away. Too bad. As for the "right version" to set the page back to, it's this:, right before the italics were inserted into the lead, or, almost equally, this: , after the RfC was closed and before the recent string of edits began. Those two versions differ only by this: , which I think had enough discussion to be said to have had consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Square One?
@North8000: I think that this is so complex that it has become intractable. I'd go one step further back in the evolutionary chain. A case for "it" has not, at least for me, been either credibly defined or made. We are told that there exists a "problem" that needs to be addressed and rectified. "It", argued several times as I recall, is the plausibility that "someone, sometime", either intentionally or thru misunderstanding, MIGHT misrepresent or misinterpret existing policy language in an attempt to incorporate known factual error into this project. That such an erroneous interpretation of the existing policy statement...


 * The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.

...cannot survive, IMHO, any legitimate consideration under WP:Policy examination is studiously dismissed.

It is suggested, instead, that the phrase in question conjures up visions of "WP doesn't care about truth" which can only be rectified by removal rather than by a concise explanation of the phrase (which already exists and should be obvious to most sentient readers anyway).

Not only is, IMHO, the rationale specious, but the very representation of the disputed statement is taken out of context and mis-represented as "VnT", a highly prejudicial and misleading shorthand in and of itself. Perhaps "T=VnT" should be used henceforth.

I'm not buying this entire approach...and the paucity, IMHO, of convicing argument in this regard coupled with the curious belligerency of some of its proponents suggests something more afoot than the above rationale...or am I simply misunderstanding the purported rationale? I'm all ears. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read the RFC and Hans Adler's page?— S Marshall T/C 16:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have I correctly represented the purported rationale? JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Haven't looked at Hans page in quite a while, but no you're not interpreting the RfC correctly (if that was your intention) the views expressed were far more diverse then what you have stated (even the proposal took into account a variety of issues that you fail to note). (Also I suspect that T=VnT would be disputed by a large proportion of the supporters of that current wording). Personally, I have no problem with the phrase as apedagogical device, I don't think that it serves it's role ideally where currently placed. Regards. Crazynast 17:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We've just spent 12 months fully establishing that it is problematic. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Purported rationale", indeed. I've decided not to spend any time on this after all.— S Marshall  T/C 17:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The one thing that is least convincing here is that there is actually a problem, or that any problems caused are of more weight than problems solved. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Becritical, will you accept that many editors perceive that there's a problem here and that those who don't perceive the problem are a minority? And will you also accept that it's within our collective powers, as editors, to come up with a better phrasing than VNT?— S Marshall  T/C 22:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, per my other posts on this page. But VnT has its own appeal, and also many of the re-phrasings do not retain the content of VnT, which is that yes, we might include something that we believe to be untrue if we have sufficient sourcing for it. But there was a distinct lack of sufficient evidence when people were asked to prove that there genuinely is a problem, especially one that a footnote couldn't fix.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just how broad has the discussion been? I strongly support "verifiability, not truth", but I haven't been participating in this discussion because I have grown tired of endless churning of this sort. -- Donald Albury 22:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Becritical, VNT doesn't say that "we might include something that we believe to be untrue if we have sufficient sourcing for it." What VNT says is "Anything sourced can be included, no matter whether it's true or not". Some editors take this to mean that Wikipedians shouldn't make judgments about whether something's true, and the most extreme VNT-is-the-one-true-way types go even further and say Wikipedians aren't qualified or can't be trusted to make judgments about whether something's true or not. This extremist view is what Jimbo was talking about with his "transcription monkeys"--the view that anything sourced can be included and this is the way to NPOV. Reading the RFC will show you editors who claim to believe this wholeheartedly. I view it with dismay. My position is that NPOV doesn't mean "take an average of everything that's ever appeared in print", and we should make judgments about the reliability of sources and exclude certain things. I believe that this is the mainstream position. I also believe that it's one of the things that VNT fails to encapsulate. You've advocated using a footnote. I don't see that as workable, myself. Blueboar's nuanced and careful wording from the compromise proposal is very hard to trim down into a footnote; you'd end up with an explanatory note that's longer than the paragraph it's supposed to explain. I really do hope that you'll come to see VNT as a dinosaur that we'd be well rid of and reexamine Regentspark's proposal with a more open mind.— S Marshall T/C 23:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You say all that and then suggest "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." But that has exactly the same problem!  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. The reason it makes sense to me is because once we extract "not truth" from that sentence, then WP:V no longer contradicts WP:RS, so we can simply let WP:RS deal with those difficult questions.— S Marshall  T/C 23:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay forgive me for not reading all the discussion but how is it that it contradicts RS? If it actually does, then it should be changed.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "The threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". "The threshold" (note definite article) is understood to mean "the only threshold", since there's no other thresholds mentioned.  (My ideal phrasing is still "A criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability", but we're stuck with "The threshold" for the moment.)  WP:RS, on the other hand, talks about the need to cover "all major and significant minority views".  It gives licence to disregard what I suppose we'd have to call "insignificant minority views", and hence the conflict. My position is that in practice we follow WP:RS in this, which is the reason why our article on Apollo program doesn't mention moon landing conspiracy theories, the reason why our article on pyramid doesn't mention ancient astronauts, and the reason why our article on species doesn't mention baraminology.  The WP:RS view is what lets us exclude the crackpots and the lunatic fringe. This is why my position is that there's a genuine tension between WP:V and WP:RS, and that we need to resolve it in favour of WP:RS.  (There are other reasons behind my position as well, but it seems to be productive for us to focus on this particular one for the moment.)— S Marshall  T/C 00:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to interject something here... The language about "significance" in WP:RS was taken directly from the WP:UNDUE section of WP:NPOV... it was repeated in WP:RS in order to reinforce what is said in WP:UNDUE (a crucial section of WP:NPOV). So if S Marshal is correct, and there is a conflict between this policy and RS on this point... then there is also a conflict between this policy and WP:NPOV.  That is of more of a concern to me, since WP:NPOV is a core policy, and one of the 5 Pillars. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Threshold" is ambiguous, but nobody has been able to come up with wording which flows/sounds as nice....I think that that is why it's still in there. Also, precise wording doesn't provide the desired emphasis. For example, "a requirement for inclusion" says it much more precisely, but sounds weak. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So inserting the word "minimum," The minimum threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth would go a long way toward addressing your concerns? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I'm afraid that I don't see how that addresses that particular concern at all. To me, "the threshold" and "the minimum threshold" seem to mean exactly the same thing.— S Marshall  T/C 00:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What about "The initial threshold"? This implies that there are other thresholds that must be crossed, but that Verifiability is the first that must be crossed (and therefor of extra importance). Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer it to "The threshold" or "The minimum threshold" but it still doesn't seem quite right to me. I think that the first idea we want to convey is, "Before you can add anything to Wikipedia, it must be verifiable." (Does that encapsulate it exactly?)  The second idea we want to convey is, "Even if you think that what you want to add is true, it must still be verifiable by means of reliable sources."  (Does that encapsulate it exactly?)  We need language that conveys exactly those two things and nothing else--language that can't possibly be accidentally misunderstood, deliberately misread, or wikilawyered, by people with an agenda.— S Marshall  T/C 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There won't be any such language, that's impossible. But "initial" is good.  Threshold for inclusion shows that you don't add or remove, it goes both ways which is important.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not a native speaker, so correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me the real issue is with "the" rather than "threshold". No matter what noun is used (threshold, criterion, requirement), as long as you put "The" in front of it the sentence can be misunderstood to mean there are no other requirements. How about "A" or "One of"? If there are concerns the wording is not strong enough an adjective like "important", "major" or even "primary" can be added. Yoenit (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Yoenit, changing "The threshold" to "An important threshold" would address one of my concerns.— S Marshall T/C 01:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

While the policies support each other, they must be independent, and independently worded. I disagree emphatically wit the idea that we should in any way be attempting to structure any one policy in such a way that it explains any other policy. I don't agree that there is tension between WP:V and WP:RS. The two policies provide depth and extension of meaning one for the other, but are not the same. While I can see how BeCritical is attempting to explain threshold, as a compromise, I'd suggest the word stands on its own. Threshold by definition means minimum, the line in the sand which is the very minimum for inclusion, Using "minimum threshold" is redundant. Threshold is already a minimum. The real issue in all of this is the concern with agenda driven editors who no matter what the wording will manipulate and reframe the policies to suit their agendas. I'm not sure what the answer is but I suspect it begins with stringent neutral policing of  policy, and as a group rather than as individuals having the guts to stand up to editors who misuse our policies, which admittedly may be naive and idealistic.(olive (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC))
 * I like S Marshall's proposals above, or anything that comes near to them. There's a lot to be said for plain English here. Part of the problem I see with VnT is it has a sort of air of mysticism or corporate-speak about it. That's not just an abstract stylistic concern, but a concern about lack of clarity on an extremely important matter for the community. Drumming a phrase into people's heads is a good idea only if its meaning is clear (@olive: that's what to do about it). "Now wash your hands" is clear. "Don't walk" is clear. "Verifiability not truth" can be interpreted in a variety of different ways, which I think is shown by the fact that we have reached the situation over it that we have. --FormerIP (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah. We can't compare a very simple command, wash your hands, to an idea. And we can't pretend this isn't an idea. Its encapsulated clearly, we just have to abide by it. My dog obeys commands as simple as wash your hands. I'm sure our editors are smarter than she is, although probably not as cute.:o)(olive (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC))
 * A mere "idea" is not really appropriate for such a prominent place in policy. People don't take is as an "idea". They quite naturally take it as an instruction. And they make all manner of errors big and small as a result. Therein lies the whatsit. On the other hand, I would be happy with the compromise of adding: "Don't take this too seriously. It's just an idea."--FormerIP (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually I didn't say mere idea. An idea is something before the mind, requires thought processes. Once a dog learns a command she merely responds. Thinking not in evidence. We have a simple nutshell phrase, and we have efforts to create and extend meaning, both within the opening paragraph.  If we don't make a connection between what one side in this discussion and the other want, this discussion has no ending. We can be inclusive and use  the nutshell phrase and an explanation too, an inclusive compromise. Excluding what one side feels strongly about is a less productive way of dealing with this, and will be as we've discovered, less successful.(olive (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Littleolive oil, what are you talking about please?— S Marshall T/C 02:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there's an incompatibility between the concept of "policy" and concepts such as "an idea before the mind" and "efforts to create and extend meaning". --FormerIP (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

SMarshall. I find your question a tad condescending, but doesn't matter. Let me explain in a more concrete way. You and others insist on excluding the nutshell phrase, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Other editors are more inclusive and have  suggested keeping the nutsehll phrase but adjusting the rest of the wording in that policy opening sentence. In this way both sides in this discussion could have some of what they want. This is a more inclusive approach,while insisting on removing the nutshell phrase and ignoring what one group of editors wants is a more exclusive approach. Clearly we do not have agreement on a change for the opening sentence of the policy. Another round of more of the same unless something is changed will produce nothing. Often in this kind of situation understanding a process can help both sides see and understand where discussion is falling apart, allowing for understanding, possible compromise and eventual agreement.(olive (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Oh, I see where you're going with this. Do you know, I'm rather tired of these insinuations.  It's not just you—earlier this week, with his own unique logic, Dreadstar tried to suggest that because I object to SlimVirgin's conduct, I must also wish she was dead—but certainly the suggestion that I'm not "inclusive" and I'm "ignoring what one group of editors wants" is a very, ah, selective interpretation of what's happening.  My position is and has always been that what you call the "nutshell phrase" is actually a slogan, and that it's simplistic and misleading, and that it should be removed.  And this is not a fringe or marginal view, it's one that has widespread endorsement and support in the editing community.  But editors are refusing to meet me half way and adapt or truncate the slogan, or even move it to another place in the policy where it can be properly explained.  In fact, editors here are being exclusive towards my point of view.  I'm certainly finding it frustrating, particularly because a small minority of editors are obstructing Blueboar's compromise which is supported by a clear majority, using software tools, and refusing to budge from their entrenched position on this.— S Marshall  T/C 10:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, my comment was meant to be a biting, sarcastic one that strongly underscores the constant, out of place assaults on SV here; especially now that she's seriously ill. I'm rather tired of your insinuations and outright accusations.  If you want to comment on the contributor instead of the content, then take it up the chain.  Dreadstar  ☥   19:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a distinction between mentioning an administrative conduct issue and making a personal attack, Dreadstar. If she weren't ill, then she and I would definitely be at dispute resolution right now, but I don't feel that it would be reasonable of me to raise the matter formally at a time when she can't defend herself.  It'll go to RFC when she returns to full health, which will not be a productive exercise but it'll enable escalation to a more appropriate venue at that time.  I do realise that you don't want me to be saying these things here and I note that you feel entitled to be biting and sarcastic.— S Marshall  T/C 02:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One last time, this talk page isn't the place for you to be bringing up over and over again what you refer to as "administrative conduct issues". I look forward to seeing the RFC/U you plan to bring, it should be....enlightening.   I'm sure the continued attacks on SV here will shine brightly in it.   Dreadstar  ☥   05:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

SMarshal. I didn't insinuate. I said outright that some editors including you are more exclusive than inclusive and actually I don't see that as a personal comment nor is it pejorative, but rather a way of looking at process. If we as editors are cognizant of our own process we can possibly have better success with our outcomes. And yes, I do feel that an inclusive approach which allows for compromise might be more successful given the history of this discussion. I'm not going anywhere with my comments, but right here, right now.(olive (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC))


 * S Marshall, my counter proposal was an earnest attempt to properly explain the phrase. I do not expect you to accept what I wrote wholesale.  But is the only other choice to reject it wholesale?  But if there were just two or three sentences in it that you thought helped explain the phrase more clearly, to incorporate into the policy, this would be another way to be "inclusive" (although I must say, Littleolive Oil, I think that was a very ideosyncratic and confusing way of using the words inclusive/exclusive). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No indeed. There are other choices aside from rejecting it wholesale, and I've given my wholehearted support to Blueboar's proposal which actually keeps it.  My position remains that it's tolerable to have VNT in the policy, but it belongs outside the lede, in a separate section where it can be properly explained.— S Marshall  T/C 12:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that my proposed compromise did not achieve a consensus. Yes, a majority of editors agreed with (or were at least willing to accept) my attempt at compromise, but... a sizable minority disagreed with it. That sizable minority is large enough that we can not ignore them.  We have to pay attention to what the minority is saying (just as the minority needs to pay attention to what the majority are saying).  If we are going to achieve consensus, we all have to be even more flexible... and try for a new compromise position.  That means something between my proposal and the current language.  I really think the only way we are going to achieve a clear consensus is to keep the VNT phrase in the lede... but move it out of the very first sentence so we can give it context.  Several people have made suggestions along those lines... any one of which would be a good starting point for building the new consensus I have been talking about. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, I'd be open to just adding something that clearly states the meaning* and thus rules out the unintended* uses as a compromise.  Like " "Not truth" in this policy means only that truth is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." in the first paragraph or early in the second paragraph as a final compromise.
 * * IMO by 95% of everyone
 * North8000 (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So, who actually has an objection to the current version?
Plain and simple, who objects to the change of "verifiability, not truth" to "verifiability, not truth" currently live on the page and why? Yoenit (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the page to the original bolding. At this point the discussion below does not show consensus for the other version. Yoenit (talk) 11:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * It is for me the only stylistic change I feel needs to be made. I can honestly live with the current wording (and equally live with many of the other proposed wordings...). The bolding of the phrase bothers me (I know the MOS doesn't apply to project space, but it's discongruent for it not to follow the guidelines) the central concept we are trying to convey here is verifiability  not not truth If it isn't I suggest we file a RM to VnT and move the essay somewhere else). Crazynast 00:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It's fine. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support that small change, but let's not let it distract us from the main issues that we're working on.  North8000 (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 10:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support existing version (with current bolding). <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No objection: and it's a significant compromise. This should be the end of it, but it sure as heck will not be. Compromise is a two-way street, not "my way or the highway". Doc   talk  08:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's marginally better than having the entire phrase bolded. Putting "truth" into scare quotes would be better still, for me; without changing the actual words, or the order in which they appear, it may help to emphasise that the "verifiable untruth" is not what we want. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaky Caldron  11:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because any progress is good. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 00:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * I think regentspark (above) has the right idea here, and I prefer his suggestion to just tweaking which text is bold and which is italic.— S Marshall T/C 00:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a purely stylistic objection, I don't like the way it looks. As a policy statement, I don't think there is any difference either way. LK (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarification, what would your ideal emphasis  be? Thanks. Crazynast 08:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If the alleged "VnT Problem" has any merit (and I don't believe that case to have been satisfactorily made), then any type of "emphasis" on "not truth", as I see it, would simply serve to exacerbate not mitigate an alleged problem. I don't see any credible rationale for the stylistic differentiation anyway. If there's any "emphasis" to be done, I would much prefer emboldening the first phrase through "not truth" since the context, IMHO, is intrinsic to this statement of policy. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * So, to restate, you feel that not truth is an intrinsic part of the concept of verifiability (as we define it on Wikiepdia)? Crazynast 17:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope. For the purposes of THIS discussion, "not truth", as is the rest of the phrase, is an intrinsic part of this policy statement and should not be emphasized or highlighted for the reasons I stated. That, in no way, suggests that WP:V, in consideration for content inclusion, is unconcerned with "truth". JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Leaky Caldron  11:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Aside from the fact that it looks stupid, what is the rationale for some words being in bold and others in italics? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "verifiability" should be the only word in bold there, near the beginning of the page, since it is title of the page? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me check the other policies/guidelines... A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. See also "Format of the first sentence" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead. Seems like the title should be bolded alone. Afterall, we wouldn't want it to seem that the title of the policy is Verifiability, not truth, even though that may come some day in the future. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:MOS applies to articles. I don't think it applies to policies and guidelines.  In any case, I checked how other policies and guidelines are formatted.  This is what I found:
 * WP:NPOV only bolds "neutral point of view (NPOV)".
 * WP:OR bolds several phrases ("Wikipedia articles must not contain original research", "directly related", "directly support", "you must not").
 * WP:BLP bolds several phrases ("information about living persons", "challenged or likely to be challenged", "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion", "Biographies of living persons (BLPs)").
 * WP:RS bolds several phrases ("reliable, published sources", "all majority and significant minority views", "should directly support").
 * WP:Fringe theories doesn't bold anything.
 * These are the policies/guidelines I'm most familiar with. Out of the 5, 4 (80%) don't follow the pattern you're suggesting.  I'll keep by !vote the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "WP:MOS applies to articles. I don't think it applies to policies and guidelines." — Why not? It's good style advice for articles in general and results in a uniform Wikipedia style. Here's the section.

Most commonly, the article's subject is stated as early as possible in the first sentence, and placed in boldface:

"The electron is a subatomic particle that carries a negative electric charge."

Only the first occurrence of this word or term is placed in boldface.

If the page title is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. So, for example, Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers begins with:

The chief electrical characteristic of a dynamic loudspeaker's driver is its electrical impedance as a function of frequency.</b, [[lockquote>


 * Note the second part of this section which explains the bolding of some of the other policies. Also note that the way bolding is used in the first sentence of some of the other policies may simply be less than desirable if it is not consistent with the Wikipedia manual of style. Note how  the first sentence of WP:NPOV is consistent with MOS advice and works quite well. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Why not?" Who cares?  Even if it did apply, policies are descriptive, not prescriptive, so if anything would need to be changed it would be MOS, not the other way around.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like our opinions re font are irreconcilable so, bye. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to be pert it's in italics because I knew that just taking it down to plaintext (or scare quotes) would be shot down, this is a middle ground. Regarding your cherry picked 80% Sock puppets, ban policy, CSD. Office actions, consensus, admins (three different words, but they all mean the same thing), usernames,civility, Wikipedia is not.  BLP (says  information about living persons and has italics in the first paragraph but no additional bolding until the second one).  Also can you quantify stupid into something less then an expression of personal prefrence, I think it's worse (read more stupid) to have a page titled Verifiability include a cognitive disconnect in the definition (something none of the pages you or I listed above include at all so batting 100% on that one so far).  Cheers. Crazynast 17:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Crazynas: I picked the policies and guidelines that I am most familiar with and had no idea what the results would be until I looked at them. You can either accept this as the truth or think that I'm a liar; I honestly don't care.  Or if you really want to get to the bottom of this, you can verify this by checking out how many edits I have on these pages, talk pages and associated noticeboards.  (Hint: I am one of the top 10 contributers to WP:RSN which is the closest noticeboard we have regarding our WP:V policy.)  But your failure to assume good faith is noted, although your strike through is also noted.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't call you a lair, labeling it as cherry picked when in fact they are pages you edit the most (as you stated up front) is a form of bias (even if that bias is simply what you're interested in) upon reading I reflected that it might come off strong (as it did apparently). My intention in providing a second list was an attempt to provide some slight counter evidence that you may have a particular (for this discussion) set of pages you edit, and not ment as a slight on you or an attack on your honesty.  Hope that helps (Also I'm still honestly curious in why you think it's stupid).  Crazynast 22:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see it go back to all bold, at least pending further discussion. A couple of reasons why: First, I somewhat agree with the criticism that it just doesn't look very attractive to mix fonts like that. Second, the consensus of the recent RfC (whether everyone here likes it or not) was to keep the existing VNT formulation until such time as editors achieve consensus for doing it better. That isn't what happened here. Instead, one editor made a bold edit, then the page got full-protected. That's not consensus. It's a quirk of timing. That doesn't mean that I'm totally against something along these lines, just that it's kind of unhelpful to make policy by timing quirks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

 * It is a purely cosmetic change, so I don't object to it - However, I don't think it resolves any of the concerns that have been raised. If we are to keep the phrase (and I think doing so is the only way to reach a consensus), we need to explain it, to prevent misunderstanding. We need to place it in context and clarify it. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree, and I almost put my comment here under "neutral" for that very same reason, except that once one has jumped down the Wikipedia rabbit hole, "oppose" folks have often managed to count "neutral" as the same as "oppose" North8000 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Purely cosmetic and doesn't deal with the underlying issues. The lack of bolding won't have any change in how the statement will be used. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  16:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm just curious if we should get this closed and (probably) revert back to the status quo (as the page is soon going to be unprotected) or try to get more community input into it? Just thinking, I'm fine either way (as I stated before). Crazynast 22:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Font change and protection
So far, it hasn't been determined whether the font change that is currently in the policy has consensus. If that consensus situation persists, and if protection were lifted and the font was changed back to the original state, would anyone here revert that back to the font change? BTW, I wouldn't since that would be trying to edit war a change into policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't because I don't care, but it could be seen given the need for FP that someone attempting to change it back would be starting it unless we have come to a consensus before then. It doesn't look like that is the case. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)((
 * The only reason I reinstated it on the page the second time was it was not clear to me that any objection existed to it (after a wholesale revert to status quo. (so that's a no I wouldn't revert). Crazynast 22:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Counter-proposal
The RfC an previous discussion revealed two issues: first, that many people do not understand what we mean by "not truth;" second, that many people feel that the standards for inclusion in WP are not sufficiently encyclopaedic. This counter-proposal is meant to address both concerns. I think it reflects current practice at WP and is consistent with our two other core content policies, which is essential.


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By “verifiaibility” we mean that readers can check that material in Wikipedia represents significant views that have already been published by a reliable source. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article).


 * Wikipedia aims to provide an encyclopaedic account of all significant views, appropriately attributed and contextualized, presented in a neutral way. Some significant views make explicit claims about what is true or false, or what is fact or opinion, and we include these as views of the truth or the facts. Editors do not provide their own views concerning facts and opinions, because there are no universally held definitions for these terms: what some consider fact others may consider opinion, what everyone considers fact may turn out to be opinion tomorrow, and because the difference between the two is not black-and-white. Experts are often divided over what is true or false, right or wrong, good or bad, beautiful or ugly. Indeed, they are sometimes more divided than the general public believes.


 * Our responsibility is not to decide which views are right, but rather to represent such views accurately. We try to assess and acknowledge degrees of controversy. Some propositions are so uncontroversial that we can put them in without citation or attribution. Some things are so controversial that not only must we provide a citation, but a quotation and specific attribution. And between these two extremes may be many degrees. For example, virtually all scholars in the life and human sciences agree that human beings are descended from a single-cell organism, which makes this kind of claim about as significant as possible. But scholars are divided as to whether the gene or the species is the principal unit of evolution, and scholars are divided as to what human behaviors can be explained by evolution — these views are significant, but only in the context of other, different views that are equally significant. Moreover, some people reject the theory of evolution altogether. Their views are not significant in relation to evolutionary science, and therefore do not belong in the article on evolution. But they are significant in other contexts, and we thus include a separate article covering the views of creationists. In order to make these distinctions, it is not enough to verify that the view exists. We must also provide an account of the context in which these views have currency, and our accounts of these contexts must also be verifiable.


 * In other words, we avoid arguments over whether views are true or false and instead seek to verify that they are indeed significant, that we are giving each view due weight, that we include equally significant views, and that we are providing accurate accounts of these views. We do not decide these things based on our own opinions; we must verify them. In order to verify them, we look for reliable sources. Editors collaborating on an article must investigate the available sources and use their judgement as to which sources are most current and appropriate. But we must use verifiable sources so that readers can check for themselves the accuracy of our accounts.


 * In many cases, our articles provide apparently uncontroversial information (such as, the date of the signing of the United States' Declaration of Independence, or the date of the Norman Conquest, or the name of India's first Prime Minister). Such information does not normally require attribution to a specific source. If however an editor believes that the information is inaccurate, we are responsible for verifying its accuracy. If information appears to be inaccurate, it may be because we have misquoted a reliable source, or it may be because we are not using the most appropriate source for this particular information. In some cases, further research may reveal that the information is actually controversial, and has been the object of scholarly debate. It is important to avoid original research, but editors may decide that it is important to provide a verifiable source. In this case, editors must determine which source is most current, reliable, and appropriate.


 * Verifiability often requires editors to distinguish between mainstream and fringe views, and between fringe views and views that fail to meet the threshold of notability required for inclusion in an encyclopaedia.
 * •	a mainstream view is widely expressed in multiple media or venues for a notable constituency (e.g. "Christians" or "biologists" or "Shakespeare scholars")
 * •	a fringe view is widely cited in multiple media or venues for a notable constituency, but negatively.
 * •	a non-notable view is rarely or never cited in multiple media or venues for a notable constituency. For example, a published book advocating a particular theory regarding Shakespeare is never cited, or cited only rarely and in passing, in mainstream journals on English literature. In these cases, a lack of appropriate reliable sources is actually informative and valuable in assessing the weight to be accorded a published view.
 * •	Sometimes, a work may be notable but is seldom cited because it addresses a very narrow issue. In such cases, other criteria may establish notability (e.g. the credentials of the author and the reputation of the publisher) but it is important to establish that the author is a recognized expert on the specific topic.


 * In order to make the above distinctions, editors need to verify more than the fact that something has been published in a reliable source. Editors must be able to:
 * •	identify the appropriate and relevant field of expertise (in many cases, one or more academic disciplines)
 * •	the mainstream journals of those fields
 * •	the difference between a positive or negative citation.
 * •	the difference between a central point that reflects the author's research, and a minor point or speculation. This can usually be determined by examining the larger context of a sentence, paragraph, or section of a published work.

I do not see how getting rid of "not truth" solves any of our serious problems; what we have to do instead is to provide clear guidance on all the other things besides one's faith in "truth" are required to create a reliable encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think is the probability that this would gain consensus? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doubtful because 1: There was a majority who did not want "not truth" so front and center as a slogan, if at all and 2) there were a lot who thought the previous proposal was instruction creep which this would look similar. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  19:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The content from "Verifiability often requires ..." onwards appears to concern WP:IRS, not WP:V. The content from "Sometimes, a work may be notable but is seldom cited ..." onwards appears to concern a specific case within IRS, not V. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO this proposal wanders far off the course of wp:verifiability and, despite good intentions, probably does more harm than good on the core issue. IMHO 95% would agree that "not truth" means only that truth is never a substitute for verifiability. This proposal seems to be building the other IMHO "5%" view that it has other meanings. North8000 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As an offhand guess, I'd agree with those guesstimates. this apparently unending series of reiterations of variations on this theme strikes me as being based on a view that a single success trumps a thousand failures. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the main problems with "verifiability, not truth" is that it gets interpreted to mean that even if we know something's false, it still should be put in if there is a source. This counter-proposal does nothing to stop that interpretation. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've oft wondered how it is that if we can not know with a satisfactory level of reliability that something is true, the same we can know with a satisfactory level of reliability that something&mdash;perhaps that same something&mdash;is false. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)

Lead
I still think my version of the lead addresses many of the problems:

This streamlines what already exists and gets rid of the troublesome "not truth" which has resulted in the 'accuracy be damned; it is verifiable' mentality demonstrated in the following insanity:


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

Maunus is saying despite the fact that an editor can show a source is factually incorrect we should use it anyhow because verifiable and we don't give a fig for truth (ie factually accuracy even if those facts are themselves verifiable). SAY WHAT?!? How can any editor in all seriousness argue this kind of nonsense? Can you say 'The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth'? I knew you could. Sheesh.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Maunus is right. As long as there are no other RS which contradict, we go with the RS even if they are wrong.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  16:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Re "As long as there are no other RS which contradict, we go with the RS even if they are wrong." — Why would you want to do that? Also note that verifiability alone is not sufficient for inclusion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I won't go over that really I don't have time right now, but that has actually been a misunderstanding of a lot of editors here. They think we do strive for truth.  What we actually strive for is the best scholarship, and if the scholars get it wrong then we do too.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:13, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the misunderstanding is that Wikipedia doesn't care about having credible information. And that misunderstanding arose from the phrase "verifiability, not truth" being interpreted to mean more than it is supposed to. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Trying to make ourselves responsible for irresponsible reporters in the media is a bad idea.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We should be responsible for including credible information. The phrase "verifiability, not truth" was meant to keep out unverifiable information that some editors thought was true. It was not meant to put in false information that was verifiable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly right, Bob... and that distinction is exactly what needs to be more clearly explained in the text of the policy. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What if false information is a notable viewpoint that is reliably sourced? Can we always tell what's false?  Who judges?  Earlier in the discussion, someone posted what I think is an applicable comment "But there are lots of cases where reliable sources write material that experts disagree with, or which the subject disagrees with (where a person or company is being written about). Those are the cases "V not T" is there to protect. It ensures that Wikipedians publish the debates and disagreements between sources, so that our readers can judge for themselves. It stops Wikipedians from deciding that Reliable Source A is just wrong, and should be given no space"  Dreadstar  ☥   20:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, these are the cases that WP:NPOV is there to protect. "V not T" was never intended to be used this way.  V not T was intended to say "don't add unverifiable material, even it is true"... and that's all it was intended to say. Unfortunately, that basic original intent has been lost. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you know, we all live, learn, grow and find new and better meanings to things that we see daily. Hopefully.. :)  And I believe there's a slight difference between VnT and NPOV regarding verifiability and truth, V definitely apples just as NPOV and OR apply; remember we don't use policies in isolation from each other.


 * What I'm talking about in my examples above is what editors think and judge as truth, not how VnT itself is applied. The argument has gone beyond that with some editors here arguing that editors judge whether a notable, verifiable, reliable source is true or not!  Editors don't do that as a matter of course, we need to follow the sources.  I hold by the V concept that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false."  This must be tempered with NPOV, N and OR, naturally; we don't just go out and publish all kinds of lies and falsehoods, mistruths and distortions.


 * I haven't seen anyone honestly argue that VnT allows us to "put in false information that was verifiable" as if it were true, or without it being notable and meeting NPOV, I've only seen that particular argument used as a tactic, mostly here in order to get rid of it. That's clearly not the meaning of VnT, and I think anyone can see that.  Dreadstar  ☥   23:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"How can any editor in all seriousness argue this kind of nonsense?" Exactly. It doesn't happen. There is no real problem to fix here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm confused, the phrase is clearly aimed at the omission of unverifiable truths not the inclusion of verifiable false information whatever that might be, if you know anything about modern physics for example both Quantum mechanics and General relativity do a very good job explaining specific phenomena but are (I believe) considered contradictory (both cannot be true). Is that what you mean by false information? (not whether editors think it is true.).  If it's published minority viewpoint some people think it is true (even if you don't). Anyhow, I agree with Bob and Blueboar here, my issue has always been placement and context (not the meme itself). Crazynast 21:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's not our job as editors to decide if what a reliable source says is true or not, we follow the sources and our content policies. If I'm deciding the truth, then I think grassy-knoll wins over lone-gunman. :)  Dreadstar  ☥   21:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar is exactly right: VnT is Wikipedia's defense against editors deciding what is true or false on their own. We do not judge what is true or false.  We rely on our sources to decide on matters of truth for us.  We may indeed include information we believe to be false.  We may even state information we believe to be false in Wikipedia's voice, if the sourcing is strong enough.  We include or exclude information based on verifiability, period.  That is why  verifiability is the basis of NPOV and not the other way around. The "not truth" part of VnT is very literally true, and is there for emphasis and to help drive home the point.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * BeCritical, I'm not going to let you carry on by seemingly ignoring my last response to you, so you lucky guy (or gal), here it is again. : )
 * We should be responsible for including credible information. The phrase "verifiability, not truth" was meant to keep out unverifiable information that some editors thought was true. It was not meant to put in false information that was verifiable.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear on my stance, I believe that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false" Dreadstar  ☥   03:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Dreadstar, re your comments,
 * "What if false information is a notable viewpoint that is reliably sourced?" — If editors think it is appropriate, then include it.
 * "Can we always tell what's false?" — No. Then it's reasonable to include it if appropriate.
 * "Who judges?" — Wikipedia editors, just like each editor normally chooses what to include in an article.
 * "But there are lots of cases where reliable sources write material that experts disagree with, or which the subject disagrees with (where a person or company is being written about). " — Then it's reasonable to include it if appropriate.
 * The cases you're referring to aren't the ones of issue. Consider a situation where an editor argues, "You know it's false, I know it's false, the original author said it's false in a later publication, but we can't keep it out because it appears in a reliable source." Do you interpret "V not T" to mean that in this case the material must be included?   A more likely case is where there is material in a reliable source that editors agree is questionable and most likely incorrect. Can an editor argue that, "We all believe that the information is not credible, but we must put it in because it appears in a reliable source." Are they required to put it in? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm referring to is exactly part of what VnT addresses. You've mixed in two different concepts of "true or false".  In the first case, if it's notable and verifiable, then yes it should be included and attributed accordingly per WP:NPOV.  We don't put it forward as a truth, but no reason not to include it with the appropriate attribution.  The second case is vague; how is not credible?  If it's a non-notable error, then we don't include it, otherwise we follow the sources, which should indicate whether something notable is true or not.  As a matter of fact, I believe WP:NPOV requires that content be included if it's a notable, yet false viewpoint.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're trying to say and connecting it with my previous message. Could you please try again as I am interested in your thoughts. I think we may agree on more than it seems to you. Perhaps you could refer to the numbered items in my last message and the two questions in the ending paragraph?  --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To make a long story short, when the conversation strayed into the "editors decide if a reliable source is true", the discussion went beyond VnT. It would be best to get the discussion back on point. My thought is that VnT should stay in the lead, with details on its meaning either in a footnote or in the body.  Dreadstar  ☥   23:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Per categorizing information as "false". The is no false and there is no true in ediitng only in the editor's mind/ opinion, therefore we say the minimum is V [but] not Truth (implied is or false). In an encyclopedia there is only knowledge and knowledge is not categorized, but must include the full range of information in a neutral manner(NPOV) on a topic or subject per weight in mainstream reliable sourcing. (olive (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC))
 * Re "therefore we say the minimum is V [but] not Truth (implied is or false)" — Could you explain what you mean by the part in parentheses? Also, I don't think there is anything in policy so far that says that editors can't use OR to remove material that is reliably sourced. In the recent large RfC proposal I think there was an attempt to somewhat address that issue which doesn't seem to be presently in any policy. At present, it seems that policy only prevents adding material based on OR, not deleting material based on OR. If I'm wrong, I would certainly be interested in the policy excerpt that says otherwise. I think that is what you may have meant by "(implied is or false)" but I don't quite understand that, so more explanation would be helpful. In other words, could you explain what you mean by "implied is or false" and how you came to that interpretation? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Ordinarily I don't think editors should use OR to exclude reliably sourced material, but there may be exceptional cases where it is clear to everyone involved that something is not sufficiently credible and then it should be excluded. But admittedly it's a more complex issue than this and it would take more work to formulate a good rule regarding it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Both the rest of the policy wording and what 95% would say that the first sentence intends is to simply say that verifiability is A requirement for inclusion. A logic parsing of the first sentence comes up with the same answer.   "Not truth" says that truth is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement.   95% would say that wp:verfiability does not and should not weigh in on inclusion / exclusion of material (e.g. all of those scenarios that y'all are discussing) except to say that verifiability is A requirement for inclusion.
 * I think that 95% would not disagree with what I just wrote. North8000 (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Reminder of consensus poll in progress re adding two sentences to first paragraph
Just a reminder that in a section above, there is currently in progress a Consensus poll re adding two sentences to first paragraph of WP:Verifiability. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Specific case
The problem is as conspiracy theory article shows perfectly good  reliable sourced material can be removed for any reason. Here is the lead I want to put in:

A conspiracy theory in its original more neutral usage is "simply a theory that posits a conspiracy--a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means;"(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017)(Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Pages 2, 140)(Balaban, Oded (2005) Interpreting conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations at Camp David II and Beyond Peter Lang Page 66)(Parish, Jane (2001) The age of anxiety: conspiracy theory and the human sciences Wiley-Blackwell page 94) but beginning in the mid 1960s the term came to be used in a derogatory manner to denote ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational theories.("20th Century Words" (1999) John Ayto, Oxford University Press, p. 15.)

And yet under claims of a consensus that I and two other editors think does not exist this is being constantly reverted if favor of a total unsouced lead despite WP:LEADCITE expressly stating "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." How is reverting my version in favor of a total unsouced (ie possible OR) version in keeping with Verifiability?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're bringing a specific content dispute to an unrelated discussion (and, rather typically, misrepresenting the discussion and even the numbers there). However, the short answer is that merely citing something is a necessary but not sufficient condition for keeping something in an article. For example, the cited material might be completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, or consists of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, or gives WP:UNDUE weight to a minority view, or misrepresent that view, etc. The long answer is that the problem with your personal version of the lede, as a number of editors have already pointed out, is your highly selective use of brief passages in a very small number of sources to promote a WP:UNDUE POV, and the fact that your lede doesn't represent the contents of the actual article, thus failing WP:LEDE. One might ask, for example, why you're citing Interpreting conflict: Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations at Camp David II and Beyond in the conspiracy theory article - but the answer is, of course, obvious; you've Googled up at tiny passage in that book that you think supports your POV, and therefore it becomes a critical source, despite the fact that the author is no expert on conspiracy theories. And finally, the elephant in the room answer is that you and a couple of other editors are trying to redeem specific conspiracy theories, and are using the back-door method of changing the lede of the Wikipedia conspiracy theory article to support the extreme minority view that the term is simply a theory of a conspiracy, rather than the common understanding and usage. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policies can't be viewed in isolation. They all have to be taken in consideration.  I haven't followed that discussion very closely but it seems the concern with your edits is WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly - the policies can't be viewed in isolation, and the concern with BruceGrubb's edits is NPOV. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that the issue was raised in Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_28 with the only true decenter being Nuujinn who on occasion has admitted not even being able to read the material he challenges I would say it is version that Jayjg reverts to that has NPOV problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only editor supporting your version there was you, Bruce - unless you include that IP editor, who has made a total of two edits ever, in that specific discussion. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

BZZZ WRONG:

"On the contrary, BruceG merely uses sources that refer to the more inclusive, general and more neutral definition and usage (...) The constant appeal to a consenusus here whilst ignoring the consensus of most all current dictionary definitions is a curious one." Mystichumwipe

"I'm sorry but it looks like you are just willfully ignoring sources when you disagree with what they say and calling it "cherry picking." It looks to me like there are at least as many sources that use the broader definition as use the narrower one, but if you can just throw out the one's you don't like under the accusation of "cherry picking" then you can write anything you want and we might as well do away with the requirement for reliable sources at all." Mystylplx

"@ Jayjg: Stick with the discussion, and not personalities. You imply a motive against me based on supposition only. Hmmm? Trying to discredit an argument by trying to discredit someone personally by innuendo and smear seems like a low trick." Mystichumwipe

"I count four in favor in the discussion. Myself, BruceGrubb, mystichumwipe and Rklawton. Wikipedia is not a democracy." Mystylplx

"Taken together near all the arguments presented favor BruceG's version, even, bizarrely, when they are arguing against it." Mystylplx

"They appear to be arguing in favor of BruceGrubbs version, yet they keep reverting it. I can't help feel that maybe there's some personal animosity going on and it's the editor being reverted rather than the edit. The current lead is exactly what they say they don't want and BruceGrubbs is at least closer to what they say they do want, yet they just keep insistantly reverting him. Why? -- Mystylplx

"The current version emphasizes the non-pejorative meaning by only including the non-pejorative meaning. I don't understand your point about undue weight, are you saying his description of the pejorative meaning is too strongly worded?" Mystylplx

"So it's been debunked that prior to the mid 60's the term meant a theory about a conspiracy, but after that point it came to mean an irrational fringe theory? If that's the case I haven't seen it (and I've looked.) Most of the arguments, quite frankly, don't seem to be very rational." Mystylplx

Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_28 shows support for my version with some word changes. So Jayjg's claim just like Knight's can be shown to be inaccurate.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only editor supporting your version at the NPOV noticeboard was you, Bruce - unless you include that IP editor, who has made a total of two edits ever, in that specific discussion. You claimed support for your view at the NPOV noticeboard, which was a rather typical distortion on your part. That was the claim you made, and that was the claim I refuted. Yes, User:Mystylplx supported you at Talk:Conspiracy theory. I ignore the "contributions" of User:Mystichumwipe - see also Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive714. Oddly enough, though, even including Mystichumwipe, not one single editor with 2,000 edits or more supports you, and half a dozen experienced editors oppose your attempts to POV these issues. Please go promote whatever conspiracy theories you are supporting on some blog, not Wikipedia. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Collect and Mystylplx were both in favor with rewording.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Mystylplx was the other editor at Talk:Conspiracy theory who agreed with your wording - like I said, not one single editor with 2,000 edits or more supports you (that includes Collect, who did not comment at Talk:Conspiracy theory), and half a dozen experienced editors oppose your attempts to POV these issues. And again, please go promote whatever conspiracy theories you are supporting on some blog, not Wikipedia. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, Your remarks such as "not one single editor with 2,000 edits or more", seem to go against a fundamental principle of the policy WP:NPA which is, "Comment on content, not on the contributor"  and they also seem like prejudicial stereotyping. Perhaps you would care to modify your comments in this regard?  Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Bob, the whole point here is that inexperienced editors who quite frankly are trying to promote conspiracy theories are trying to support their views by changing how Wikipedia defines a conspiracy theory. As such, it's entirely relevant. While it's inappropriate to comment on editors on article Talk: pages, it's quite a different matter in other venues, and I don't spend much time these days ignoring the elephant in the room with these discussions. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your remarks seem to be unverified theories about how many edits it takes for an editor to become sufficiently competent, and completely neglect the diversity in the abilities of editors to learn and understand the Wikipedia system.  Also,  those following this discussion might wonder why your comments on contributors are even needed if your comments on content were sufficient.  In any case, it's better to follow WP:NPA and "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bob K31416. I would point out this is the same kind of nonsense the Jesus myth theory article went through for years in an effort to POV that subject into something that the RS material showed was far more diverse then certain editors wanted to admit.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well of you course you would agree with Bob, you're one of the people promoting the conspiracy theories. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Promoting 'what conspiracy theories? The ones like the Nazis setting the Reichstag fire or those like the idea the banker our out to control the world?  Which set of conspiracy theories am I supposedly promoting?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bruce, anyone who reads the absurd original research essay you've written at Jesus myth theory (and I doubt most could get through it all), and then compares the current lede you've written (which is merely a summary of your essay) with the lede of six months ago (which actually summarized the article) will understand exactly what kind of editing you're actually doing here. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no OR involved in Jesus myth theory as each point regarding the definitions has a source backing it up ie is verifiable. As had been pointed out numerous time before we are not transcription monkeys.  As Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition shows the consensus was what the term Christ Myth theory even is was a disjointed mess--some authors are talking historical myth (Mead, Robertson, Wells, and Ellegård) while others are going the pure myth route.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's as if WP:SYNTH didn't exist at all, and people were free to grab whatever source they liked, regardless of whether it was about the topic of an article, to write whatever bad high-school essays they want in any article that caught their fancy. And then, it's as if they compounded it by – when they actually used sources on the topic – relying mostly on sources that were published in 1909, completely ignoring the obvious point that the world, not to mention the state of any theory, might have changed in the last century. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out some time ago on the talk page what Jesus myth theory even was had been come a mammoth game of pick that source with equally mammoth SYN to try and make the various sources agree with with each other. I even pointed in Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_41 is that there has been a strong feeling that the entire Jesus myth theory article is one big WP:CFORK.  The weird twisting of Wood's "But the sociological fashion reflected in the rise of Formgeschichte leads colour to Christ-myth theories and indeed to all theories that regard Jesus as an historical but insignificant figure." to keep the article int he Jesus didn't exist as a human being slant the article had was totally bizarre.  Do I like the Jesus_myth section I wrote?  Not really as I would like a little more than a smoking gun that I have right now but it has shut down the 'turn the argument into a strawman' nonsense that made the article a migraine for so many years and it does a reasonable job of keeping NPOV in the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So you "solved" alleged "mammoth SYN" by adding an introductory WP:SYN essay about the meaning of "myth" and "theory", and by using 100-year-old sources, and then basing the article lede almost entirely on that essay. Got it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob, again, I don't spend much time ignoring the elephant in the room with these discussions. In this case, you and I have disagreed vehemently, on what, a dozen policy discussions now? And, as far as I can tell, never really agreed on any. So, frankly, you're just using this discussion as a way of getting your digs in. I'm not going to bother wasting further time with you. Bye! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bye, and Happy New Year. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Reporting potentially inaccurate material
The actual case is over at Inaccuracy under conspiracy theory: "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909." (Knight, Peter. Plots, paranoia and blame. BBC News, 7 December 2006). Knight is a senior lecturer in American Studies from the University of Manchester being quoted in a well-respected paper--RS through and through. Another reliable source that implies 1909 is the Oxford English Dictionary. However such statements are inconsistent with other reliable source evidence that the phrase was used earlier--the phrase "conspiracy theory" occurs before 1909 in:
 * Garrison, George Pierce (1906) Westward extension, 1841-1850 Edited by Albert Bushnell Hart LLD Professor in history in Harvard University, p. 31,
 * Rhodes, James Ford, (1895) History of the United States from the compromise of 1850 New York, Harper,
 * (1891) The Economic review: Volume 1 Christian Social Union (Great Britain) Oxford University Branch, p. 540,
 * Ellis Thompson, Wharton Barker The American: a national journal: Volumes 19-20 10 May 1890, p. 67,
 * McCabe, James Dabney (1881) Our martyred President ...: The life and public services of Gen. James A Garfield, p. 556,
 * (1871) The Journal of mental science: Volume 16 Association of Medical Officers of Asylums and Hospitals for the Insane (London, England), Medico-psychological Association of Great Britain and Ireland, Royal Medico-psychological Association, p. 141.

Before people get on the OR bandwagon remember that per WP:OR "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." The fact that the phrase "conspiracy theory" appears before 1909 meets Verifiability as you can pick up any of the sources above and confirm it presence. Note Knight does NOT say that term "conspiracy theory" was used a particular way only when its first recorded use occur--which via the reliable source can be shown to be factually inaccurate. Yet we are told that "Yes, Maunus is right" in keeping this demonstrable inaccurate information and consequently that books by Oxford University Branch and Professor in history in Harvard University not reliable sources. SAY WHAT?!? What is this insanity?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You keep using primary sources to push a POV that contradicts what reliable secondary sources say, despite the fact that you have no idea if those primary sources are referring to the same thing that the secondary sources refer to. It's part of a larger campaign of POV-pushing on specific conspiracy theories, and in general on the conspiracy theory article itself. For example, look at the mess you've made of the Jesus myth theory lede - rather than having it explain and summarize the topic of the article, you've instead inserted huge amounts of WP:OR regarding your personal theories as to why there are various different definitions of what the Jesus myth theory is. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, your argument makes no sense as Maunus is clearly stating that we should keep demonstrable FALSE information in simply because it is verifiable. The key word there is "demonstrable" not an editor's option but stuff that is verifiable ie STUFF YOU CAN LOOK UP.


 * I threw down this gauntlet a while ago to prove the point:


 * Is the statement "The phase "conspiracy theory" appears before 1909" was verifiable (ie a fact that can be confirmed by the sources in question)


 * To date NO ONE has actually touched the thing because there was no way they could without looking totally foolish. The best we got was some clever dodge of the actual issue--such as that seen above.


 * Again is the exact statement "The phase "conspiracy theory" appears before 1909" verifiable? No hemming or hawing or diverting of the topic--just a yes or no on the the exact statement presented.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here was about your WP:OR, and what you were complaining about in the article disappeared months ago. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ANSWER THE QUESTION, Jayjg. Yes or no.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing your games, Bruce. This is WP:V; take your unrelated interests to some blog, please. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take his advice Bruce. Yoenit (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Typical tactic we have seen before-avoid the actual issue raised. As I stated on the conspiracy theory talk page the following list of warrented conspiracy theories (some proven some not) can be hammered from the sources presented in the talk pages of that article:


 * Business Plot (Knight pg 625)
 * CIA drug trafficking (Knight pg 237)
 * The Dreyfus Affair (Zernike, Kate (April 30, 2011) "The Persistence of Conspiracy Theories" New York Times)
 * General Motors streetcar conspiracy (Keeley, Brian L. "Of Conspiracy Theories" Journal of Philosophy (March, 1999) pg 109-126 reprinted as chapter 4 of David Coady's Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate)
 * Jimmy Hoffa was killed by the Mob and buried in an unknown location (Knight pg 319)
 * Iran-Contra Affair (Knight pg 349)
 * The Nazis set the Reichstag fire (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457)
 * Operation Gladio (Knight pg 231)
 * Operation Mockingbird (Knight pg 486)
 * Operation Northwoods (Knight pg 117)
 * Project MKULTRA (Knight pg 490)
 * Sicilian Mafia (Knight pg 451)
 * Tuskegee syphilis experiment (Knight pg 38, 45, 538)
 * Watergate (Knight pg 725)

Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history ABC-CLIO

Please note that Peter Knight's book is titled "Conspiracy theories in American history" and not "Conspiracies in American history" so logically all of the above are conspiracy theories not conspiracies.

The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler states that some serious scholars along with Communist propagandists are in support of the "Nazi conspiracy theory" ie the idea the Nazis themselves set the Reichstag Fire. This is supported by Storming to power Time Life Books pg 157: "Because the fire had been a godsend for Hitler, an entirely different conspiracy theory took root. According to this notion, which was assiduously promoted by the communists and widely believed outside of Germany, the Nazis had staged the whole affair and made a dupe of the young Dutchman."

As pointed out on the talk page this makes the whole UNREFERENCED statement of "secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public" in the lead suspect. Bratich in Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6 states "Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category. We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term."

The reality is as Bratich points out is conspiracy theory is a bridge between the rational and irrational. Some conspiracy theories like the Nazis themselves set the Reichstag Fire or the Mob killed Hoffa and buried him someplace are completely rational and plausible while others such New World Order and banking conspiracies (just the old Jews control the economic world idea given a new coat of paint) are off in tin foil hat land.

So the two of you are saying works by SUNY, University of Missouri Press, and ABC-CLIO, and Time Life books are blogs?!? Sheesh. I will admit Time Life book quality can be really iffy but SUNY, University of Missouri Press, and ABC-CLIO?!? Come on guys the argument you are presenting is getting really silly.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeing with Bruce on this. I have no particular knowledge about the phrase "conspiracy theory", but a few years ago I tried to get the article Cold War corrected because it attributed the first use of the phrase to somebody called Bernard Baruch because that was contained in a reliable source, even though the phrase was actually coined by George Orwell. But I only had a primary source, so I failed. Since then, there has, to be fair, obviously been some compromise. The article now does credit Orwell, but it still includes a pointless and contradictory paragraph also crediting Baruch. Even though this information is wrong not of interest for the purposes of the article, it is there simply because it is contained in a reliable source. Note that this a simply incorrect application of NPOV. Where two sources contradict, we should in many cases give the information contained in both sources. But in this case, it is easy to work out which source is correct. All you have to do is know that 1945 came before 1947. Which is not by any stretch of the imagination "original research". --FormerIP (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you FormerIP and had the same experience on an article and was changed only after a smart admin agreed with me that the full testimony was the accurate one and we had to go the primary source to get it as the "reliable newspaper sources": were giving only "half" of the testimony which as stated actually meant something entirely different and incuplated rather than excupated the witness. This rule desperately needs to be changed, especially if SOPA is passed. Mugginsx (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here. One is specific, the other is general. The specific issue is: what date should WP provide as the earliest use of "conspiracy theory?" We need to use a reliable source. For various reasons we favor secondary sources when forwarding interpretations. Knight's research is on interpreting the meanings of conspiracy theories in American culture, and he is a reliable source for one point of view on the meaning of conspiracy theories. But this does not make him the most reliable source on the earliest usage. His book and articles do not claim to be research aimed at establishing the earliest use of the term, and his analysis and arguments do not hinge on 1909 being the first instance of usage. It seems pretty obvious to me that the 1909 source is the earliest one Knight knows of, but he is not making an argument about the date. So I do not think that we should look to him as a source for the earliest use. The OED would be a more appropriate source. The problem is that Bruce cannot distinguish between an appropriate and inappropriate source on a particular question. Knight's expertise is in interpreting conspiracy theories, and the proper way to use this source is as a source for one particular view on the meaning of conspiracy theories. People with PhDs make little mistakes like this all the time. An article in a peer-reviewed journal usually makes a great many claims. The author is usually responsible for fact-checking, and most academic authors carefully check facts that are central to their argument, and often do not check facts that are not central to their argument. The way this should work is, an editor uses Knight as a source for this fact, and then editors can argue whether Knight is an appropriate source for this fact. I would argue that he is not, and I am confused by Bruce's position, because on the one hand he is insisting that Knight is a reliable source for this date, and on the other hand he is insisting that Knight is not a reliable source. Anyway, I think we should use the OED or works by historians or etymologists for claims about the origins of terms.

The second, general, issue is original research. Bruce has done his own research and thinks it is better than Knight's research. Bruce may well be right, but most Wikipedian's understand why we must all abide by our NOR policy. Since WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we cannot assume that any editor is a better researcher than a published source, and we cannot assume that we editors can judge the quality of the original research of another editor - that would be like making WP editors the peer-reviewers of journal articles. But the people who peer review journal articles are people with PhDs and some expertise relevant to the article submission. And we cannot require people to prove that they have these credentials prior to being allowed to edit Wikipedia. If we want WP to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, we cannot allow original research. This is general policy and we can't make an exception just for Bruce Grubb. here the solution is obvious: bruce Grubb enjoys doing original research on stuff like the earliest instance of the term "conspiracy theory." So we just follow our NOR policy ant politely tell Bruce: look, Bruce, if you want to publish original research, by all means, do so! But WP is not the appropriate venue for your publishing your original research. Write up your findings and submit it as an article to a peer-reviewed journal. If it gets through peer-review and is published then we can incorporate it into WP! Yes, we realize it is a bit of a hassle to submit an article to a journal and submit to peer review, but if you want to publish your research you have to be willing to make those extra afforts. You just cannot try to use WP to publish your original research because it is convenient. Publish your research in an established and appropriate venue, and then we can cite it here. This is our policy towards all editors' research. I see no reason to abandon this policy; I think as long as we do not have an editorial board and peer-review and require editors to have PhDs like other encyclopedias, we need to abide by our NOR policy. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent summary, Slrubenstein. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On the specific issue... what date should WP provide as the earliest use of "conspiracy theory?" What about "no date"?   Simply omit mentioning when the term was first used.  This would resolve the entire conflict. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On the specific issue, the article, in fact, omits mentioning the date of the earliest use of "conspiracy theory". In fact, it hasn't mentioned a date since September 10. Despite this, Bruce Grubb keeps flogging this dead horse, again and again, in multiple fora. The question here is, why does he keep fighting this pointless battle 3½ months after it was resolved? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WRONG. ʍaunus' comment of "User BruceGrubb is for example arguing that we have to remove a statement by a recognized professional making a claim about the first usage of the word, because he himself has found an earlier usage. I say if the statement is significant we include it attributed to its source, regardless of whether BruceGrubb's or another editors original research suggest that the statement may be factually incorrect." was made in OCTOBER.  OCTOBER IS NOT SEPTEMBER.  Shessh.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Knowing that something was said on so-and-so date is not "original research": within the meaning of Wikipedia, and deciding that a secondary source got the date of something wrong is not "publishing your original research".
 * A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source.
 * Knowing "this phrase was published on this date" is a straightforward descriptive statement that any educated person can verify is supported. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To begin with, why would one state in an article "the phrase was published on date X"? The only reason would be if that usage were notable - in fact, to imply that this was the first use. However, the editor has no idea if that is the first use - it's simply the first use he was able to find. Perhaps it was used decades earlier, but these uses weren't scanned by Google. In addition, one has no idea what the phrase meant at the time it was published. Phrases do change meaning over time, or are actually coined to mean different things by different authors. As a simple example I've experienced, the phrase "kosher tax" is today typically used to refer to a late 20th/early 21st century conspiracy theory that Jews are secretly taxing gentiles on their food. However, one editor kept insisting that it also referred to a real tax, because he was able to Google up the use of the phrase in a 1933 TIME article, referring to a proposed levy on kosher meat. Original research based on primary sources is filled with these kinds of pitfalls, which is why it should be avoided. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to butt in, but in what way is Time magazine a primary source? Crazynast 18:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Time magazine would be a primary source for the statement "In 2011, Time magazine named 'The Protester' its Person of the year". It would be a very very reliable source for this statement (indeed it would be the most reliable source possible), but it would be a primary source never the less. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I realize that, however in the example Jayjg provided this appeared not to be the case.(See I really do need to stick to parentheticals I thought about explaining exactly what you said in my first comment and didn't.) You would agree that Time, in it's normal reporting and compiling of the news is a secondary source... right? Crazynast 19:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it's normally a reasonably reliable secondary source. However, in this case an editor was using it as a primary source, making a claim about a phrase by analyzing its usage in the magazine. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jayjg here... context is key to understanding this dispute... Sure, it does not violate WP:V to say: "The phrase ABC appeared in source X, published in 1770" and cite the 1770 publication that contains the phrase. But we then have to go further and examine the context in which we note this verifiable fact. There is no point to mentioning it except in the context of implying that the publication was in some way a notable usage of the phrase (in this specific case, the implication is that it was a first usage)... and to say that we need a secondary source - without a secondary source the implied statement violates WP:OR. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It may not be a source for the first use of the phrase, but it's a source for a bound on the first use of the phrase--finding a source from 1945 may not tell you that the first use is 1945, but it does tell you that the first use is at latest 1945. If so, a secondary source which claims the first use is 1947 is incorrect.  That secondary source is verifiable but false.  "Verifiablity, not truth" should not be an excuse to use a known falsehood. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ken, You are conflating three separate issues...
 * a) Is the discovery of source A (the 1945 use) a valid basis to at least question the accuracy of the the claim in source B (that first use was in 1947)? I would say yes.  In fact, I think it raises enough of a question that we should remove the 1947 "first use" claim from the article.
 * b) Is the fact that the phrase was used in 1945 by source A verifiable? Yes.
 * c) Should we mention the fact that the phrase was used by source A in 1945 in the article? I would say no... While Verifiable, the only reason to mention this fact is in the context of it being a noteworthy usage... and for us to say that the usage is noteworthy we would need a source which comments upon that noteworthiness.   Without such a source, it would be a WP:Or violation for us to say it is noteworthy.
 * So what do we do?... we don't mention either source. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But as I pointed out before and you keep ignoring Maunus is basically saying despite the fact that an editor can show a source is factually incorrect we should use it anyhow because verifiable and we don't give a fig for truth (ie factually accuracy even if those facts are themselves verifiable. If you go back to Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15 you can see some partial examples of the 'accuracy be damned; it is verifiable' mentality Maunus holds to:
 * "This is another one of those instances in which "verifiability, not truth" is what matters for Wikipedia. It can be verified that the author claims that the first recorded use was from 1909, whether or not his claim is accurate. (...) In this case, it looks like you're correct that the phrase appears in earlier publications, but it's beyond us to counter the author's claim because doing so would be original research." (John Shandy)
 * "An editor here proving Knight wrong by researching primary texts which are not about conspiracy theories, but which happen to use the phrase, would be a pretty clear violation of NOR." (Nuujinn) "Here" in my eye refers to the talk page and is a totally insane position.
 * "Looking for sources using the phrase "conspiracy theory" is indisputably original research, and we simply don't publish our own work here." Right, looking for source material is OR--sigh.
 * As I said this all demonstrated a total misunderstand of just what verifiable and OR really are and is one of the key problems with wikipedia.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Primary sources are verifiable. There are some who try to act as if we can't use them, but that is not policy.  Nor should it be.  People from an academic background know that primary sources are valued most highly in science - never trust a reviewer to tell the whole story.  We just have to be careful on Wikipedia about how we interpret them, whether we are using them as a way to write our own story.  When given a choice between sources, of course, we always make judgments to try to determine which to give the most weight. Wnt (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is correct, and primary sources are, in fact, the best sources within their scope... the problem is, that the scope of a single primary source is often unusable in an encyclopedic context. The diary of an American sailor offshore during the Battle of Iwo Jima would be an excellent source... for material we probably don't really want to write about.  The trouble is, pulling together, analyzing, and summarizing primary sources is not our job. Primary sources also don't speak to Notability at all. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't accept this. Time Magazine doesn't become a "primary source" just because you're talking about a phrase.  Just tell a little more about how it uses the phrase so that you're using it to say what it says.  I haven't tracked down the original quote, but say something like "In 19XX Time Magazine described the planning of XXX as a 'conspiracy theory'" (or better yet, use a longer quote).  There's also nothing clearly wrong about adding an extra sentence like "Even so [the OED's story], the phrase has appeared in print previously..."  Some people here have lost track of the meaning of verifiable.  It means that you can look up the fact stated in the reference and see that there is a clear basis for what the editor said.  It does not mean that it has to be some particular kind of fact from some particular kind of reference. Wnt (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wnt and would like to point out that scholarly papers are both primary and secondary sources. My efforts to put two scholarly works by Weston Price regarding his views on Focal Infection theory (1925. "Dental Infections and related Degenerative Diseases" J Am Med Assoc 1925;84(4):254-261. and Nutrition and Physical Degeneration: A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets and Their Effects (1939) Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers) in the article about him have been removed under the 'oh they're Primery we can't use them'.  Certainly the best person to tell us what Weston Price thought would be...Weston Price!  But we are told can't use them because they are primary.  This is like saying we can't use The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin regarding Benjamin Franklin because it is a primary source and it is a primary source because is it written by Benjamin Franklin.  SAY WHAT?!?  Does this make a lick of sense?!?  No, but that is what people arguing against the use of Primary sources are basically saying.  Sure we should be careful on how we use primary sources but rejecting wholesale just make one look totally silly.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wnt, any source can be used as a primary source; this is a fairly fundamental and straightforward fact. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is that editors simply aren't qualified to do original research on primary sources, and contradict secondary sources in so doing. Here's another example: the Oxford English Dictionary says that the first printed use of the word "Islamophobia" was in the American magazine Insight on the News in 1991. However, one can actually find earlier uses of the term - so, what to do? Well, if you follow Wikipedia's policies, and stick to what reliable sources say (as I did), you eventually find reliable secondary sources that explain (among other things) that So, did the reliable secondary sources (the OED) get it wrong by saying the first use in print was 1991? Well, it's hard to say, actually - does non-English use of a slightly different word count? Does a use of the same term to mean something else count? The world is complex, and Wikipedia editors aren't experts. That's why we must rely on what reliable secondary sources say. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The earliest uses were in French (islamophobie), not English, and the English translator did not translate the word as "islamophobia", but rather as "feelings inimical to Islam".
 * Uses before 1991 actually described something different - fear by Muslims of their own religion, not dislike/hatred of Muslims by non-Muslims.
 * Given what happened with "conspiracy theory" I have to wonder if the Oxford English Dictionary expressly and directly states that "Islamophobia" was first used in in English in 1991 or that is an interpretation (ie OR) of what it actually says. Interestingly the online version of the Oxford English Dictionary no longer gives examples of when a word is used.
 * In any case it was easy to check the validity of "the first printed use of the word "Islamophobia" was in the American magazine Insight on the News in 1991" via a quick trip to google:
 * "PET — Muslim Forums against Extremism and Islamophobia The creation of six regional forums led by key individuals to bring together members of local Muslim communities," (Terrorism: documents of international and local control: Volume 88 1979)
 * "As antisemitism was the main source of irrational hate in the early twentieth century, so Islamophobia seems to be..." (Nigerian journal of Islam Volume 3 University of Ife 1975)
 * "We call upon all civil society institutions and effective political actors to raise their voice of conscience against the rising tide of Islamophobia" Research Centre for Islamic History, Art, and Culture 1986)
 * "sources because of Islamophobia" General History of Africa: Methodology and African prehistory 1981 Unesco. International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa Page 107)
 * "take us away from the framework of Orientalism and Islamophobia, which identify Western anxieties and axiomatics'," (P. G. Wodehouse: a portrait of a master 1974 Page 203)
 * "Certain writers in particular are blamed for their ' Islamophobia '. Mohammed, our authors complain, is called an epileptic, a charlatan, one suffering from hysteria, a socialist obsessed with the idea..." (Journal of theological studies: Volumes 25-26 1924)
 * Via these sources we that the statement "the first printed use of the word "Islamophobia" was in the American magazine Insight on the News in 1991" is factually wrong via verifiability as we find earlier uses of the term including one in a Journal and they are all written in ENGLISH. So Jayjg's hand waving to try and salvage this position has just done a major crash and burn.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, at a quick glance, it seemed odd to me that a 1974 biography of P.G. Wodehouse would be discussing Orientalism and Islamophobia. But wait, when you actually look at the text, it is citing sources from the late 2000s! Oh, and wait again, it appears that the text actually has nothing to do with Wodehouse, and is apparently about something else entirely, published decades later. And the Nigerian Journal of Islam appears to also discuss the Iraq war and the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism (established 2001). And of course, "PET — Muslim Forums against Extremism and Islamophobia" was set up in the UK in 2005, following the 7 July 2005 London bombings. What about the Research Centre for Islamic History, Art and Culture source? Why that starts with the words "It is a pleasure for me to address the readers of of IRCICA Newsletter for the first time after assuming office as Director General at IRCICA as of 1 January 2005". Wow, it turns out that Google often gets it wrong when it comes to things like the date things were published, and sometimes even things like the names of scanned texts. So yet again, letting Wikipedia editors do their own original research based on snippets they manage to Google up has been shown to be a bad idea (aside from contradicting policy). Bruce, please give up your obsessive campaign here to allow OR and rehabilitate conspiracy theories. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a similar trip to Google Books (apologies, everyone else who isn't interested in this). Results here. Google Books does sometimes give a completely wrong publication date; it can't be trusted. Always best to check the actual copyright notice in the book. So some of Bruce's results above are spurious, but others look genuine (I checked the copyright pages or verified the publication date elsewhere). -- J N  466  06:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point about the copyright dates on Google book but you have proved my actually point: the "the first printed use of the word "Islamophobia" was in the American magazine Insight on the News in 1991" is factually wrong via verifiability.
 * While a blog and therefore not RS for wikipedia the BS historian does point you to sources including the Journal of theological studies reference above:


 * "Certain writers in particular are blamed for their ‘ Islamophobia ‘. Mohammed, our authors complain, is called an epileptic, a charlatan, one suffering from hysteria, a socialist obsessed with the idea of an impending judgement. In reality he was a socialiste religieux." Vol.26, p.102;


 * A little cross check at the actual website for the Journal of theological studies confirms that Journal of theological studies Vol.26, p.102 was indeed published in 1924 Face it Jayjg your example has done a crash and burn.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bruce, you do a bunch of OR research using Google, your examples turn out to be wrong, and I'm the one whose "example has done a crash and burn"? LOL! Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have proof that the Journal of theological studies 1924 Vol.26, p.102 example is wrong or that your interpretation of OED is right? Then produce one or the other or stop wasting our time. --BruceGrubb (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice try - you presented six sources, claiming that they proved that "this position has just done a major crash and burn". As it turns out, five of your sources were spurious, and the sixth was not only referenced in a secondary source, but its exact meaning is still not clear, since you haven't actually read the whole source, just a snippet. Moreover, Wikipedia's article never claimed what you attributed to it, the statement "the first printed use of the word "Islamophobia" was in the American magazine Insight on the News in 1991". Rather than "the first printed use" Wikipedia's article has, since October 2007, said "an early documented use", which was then, and is still now, 100% accurate. Again, you're obfuscating, fighting straw men, and "solving" issues that have already been solved long ago. It is you who is continually and obsessively wasting our time here; please desist. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Scylla and Charybdis. It surely partly depends on how authoritative the source is that we suspect may be in error. In the case of the OED, the OED is so notable as an authoritative source that even if the information is wrong (and it is) it is still worthwhile to state what the OED says, with attribution: "The OED dates the first use of the term to ...", because readers may have a reasonable expectation for us to inform them of what the OED says about it. Looking for earlier occurrences in primary sources, and noting that in the article, is fraught with potential error, as we've just seen, and probably inappropriate, for the reasons Jayjg and Blueboar have pointed out (at most, a footnote might be appropriate if the material is thoroughly vetted; but can we trust editors to do that? Probably not). The correct response is to look for other secondary sources, as Jayjg did, and to give the version of each, with attribution. This is when we are talking about a high-end source like the OED. But things are quite different at the low end, such as entertainment journalism. If, for example, zeenews.com reports that Scientology is banned in France and Germany, that information has absolutely no place in Wikipedia, whether it's verifiable or not. And you do get editors who will insist that verifiability is all that matters in such cases. So, while on the one hand we are no scholars, we may quite often be smart enough to detect sloppy journalism or plain error. -- J N  466  07:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again does the OED 'directly and expressly date first use of the term to certain year or is that your interpretation (ie OR) of what it actually states?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen it; my copy is too old to list the word. -- J N  466  08:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As Vesal pointed out in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_52 "the OED does not claim to be noting first usages, only important early usages." There is a BIG difference between first usage and important early usage and reading OED's information as first usage especially when earlier examples can be show to exist is silly.  As for Jayen466's comment regarding Scientology you have to ask would zeenews.com qualify as a RS in the first place and even if it does how does the information it provides jive with more familiar news outlets who quality is known (BBC, CNN, etc)?  It should be noted the Scientology in France does mention the mix up in information while Scientology in Germany does not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see the point of this discussion. There are two issues: (1) what information is necessary or desirable in an article (e.g. "the first reference," "the earliest reference" "One of the earliest references" or "the earliest recorded instance" Or "Early instances include " and so on) and (2) what are the best sources for this information.  The answers to both questions will vary depending on the article, and should be answered through discussionb among editors working on those articles.  I do not see how this question can be or should be resolved here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem and a suggested solution
Here's what I think is going on. In some early pre-1909 pubs, "the conspiracy theory" was used to refer to some particular theory, but the concept of "a conspiracy theory" was (almost) not yet there. Book n-grams sort of supports this. Many of the primary sources mentioned above are somewhat bogus, in being of the former sort, and may have been ignored by the OED for that reason. However, a book search for "a conspiracy theory" does still find a few that appear to use it in the modern sense. That's the problem.

A possible solution: state what the OED says, and follow with more truth: ''Though the earliest use listed in the OED is in 1909, a few publications discuss the concept of "a conspiracy theory" a few years before that. ref ref ref.'' Everyone knows the OED's claims of "first" are based on finite samples, and that few claims of "first" are really supportable or accurate, so this is in no way dissing them; they'll be happy to get the input, too. As for the BBC news article, they're just saying with the OED says, so I'd not cite them.

I've done this on other articles with no complaints. But I'm not saying where... Dicklyon (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated above, the problem was already solved, 3½ months ago, when all reference to the earliest use of the phrase was removed from the article - thus resolving Bruce's complaint that a secondary source was being used for a claim that was, in his view, disproven by his research on primary sources. Despite this, Bruce continues to bring it up in various fora as if it were an on-going issue, thus drawing more and more editors into pointless time-wasting discussions about how to solve a "problem" that has already been fixed long ago. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Problem avoidance isn't quite problem solution though. Dicklyon (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your proposed solution creates other problems; specifically, that Wikipedia editors are now doing original research on the usage, and implying that the uses they have found are relevant, notable or significant in some way. See my 18:15, 29 December 2011 response to Ken Arromdee and the comments by Blueboar of 19:48, 29 December 2011 above. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 07:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Several things here.
 * First the issue came up after it was resolved when Maunus said the demonstrably inaccurate information should have been kept in and made this claim October 7 not September 10 as claimed above.
 * Second, that the statement "The phase "conspiracy theory" appears before 1909" is verifiable a fact that those arguing against me keep ignoring.
 * Third as explained in the conspiracy theory talk page in the ABC-CLIO book Knight wrote he said it was implied that the phrase conspiracy theory while in the 2006 BBC article Plots, paranoia and blame Knight flat out stated "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909." a factual error repeated by the online version of merriam-webster as "First Known Use of CONSPIRACY THEORY 1909"
 * Again I ask is it verifiable that the phrase "conspiracy theory" used in the following:
 * "The conspiracy theory is based on a misconception of the so called Union minorities in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana." (New outlook, Volume 52 1895 pg 394)
 * I must content myself with saying that the class-conspiracy theory of economic development may generally be considered false,..." in The Economic review: Volume 1 Christian Social Union (Great Britain) Oxford University Branch 1891 Page 540.
 * "Such a view of the case, if it were generally entertained, would have an important bearing on the conspiracy theory." (Ellis Thompson, Wharton Barker The American: a national journal: Volumes 19-20 May 10, 1890 Page 67)
 * "The trial below being conducted on the conspiracy theory manifestly enlarged the scope of investigation and testimony, greatly to the disadvantage of Hamilton; and it seems to me, that common justice and fairness appeal..." Teasdale v State Alabama. Supreme Court, Florida. Supreme Court, Louisiana. Supreme Court, Mississippi. Supreme Court,... 1888
 * "In that connection I want to say that that conspiracy theory was a pure invention of the prosecution..." Congressional edition-Senate of the United States United States. Congress 1888 pg 390
 * "There is more and more doubt of the conspiracy theory. None of the Cabinet officers approve it, and the President himself does not believe in it." (McCabe, James Dabney (1881) Our martyred President ...: The life and public services of Gen. James A Garfield pg 556)
 * "It was at least more plausible that the conspiracy theory of Mr. Charles Eeade, and the precautionary measure suggested by Dr. Sankey of using a padded waistcoat in recent cases of mania with general paralysis..." The Journal of mental science: Volume 16 Association of Medical Officers of Asylums and Hospitals for the Insane (London, England), Medico-psychological Association of Great Britain and Ireland, Royal Medico-psychological Association (1871)
 * Again, "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." The reality is the statement "the phrase "conspiracy theory" was used before 1909" can be verified BECAUSE SOURCES BACKING UP THAT STATEMENT EXIST.  Saying this is OR is basically saying the sources above do not exist which is either ignoring reality or totally delusional.  Similarly saying that we should use a source claims that we should have used Knight's "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909" even when presented with verifiable evidence that it is not accurate shows that the whole "Verifiability not truth" has been twisted into an unrecognizable abomination and needs to be put down like a mad dog.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you about this example but I also support sticking with "verifiability not truth". Your information is verifiable --- you just verified it!  The policy going "mad dog" here is the one about original synthesis.  As long as (a) you have a source and (b) the source says what you said, you should be OK.  Likewise it is also necessary to be careful to make sure a secondary source says what you said - if the OED says the first instance it found for a term was in 1909, does that mean the first instance in a large but finite collection of books?  Is it saying the term was coined then?  Is it saying it first "entered the language" then, by some standard of popularity?  Tell the reader exactly what the sources say and most of the time contradictions dissolve into details.  That's absolutely the essence of verifiability not truth. Wnt (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, you're still not getting it. Just because something is verifiable it doesn't mean you should include it, and synthesis/OR is a real problem. Please re-read Blueboar's and my posts. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that Maunus claimed that even if it could be proven through verifiable sources that Knight was factual wrong we should have still used him and neither you or Blueboar have even touched this actual issue I suggest you both go back and reread what I have actually said and not what you think I have said.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bruce, whatever you think the "actual issue" is is irrelevant, because the material hasn't been in the article for months, via the regular editing process, and you're just using this forum (among many) to flog a dead horse. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to divert this issue actually presented isn't going to work. Either argue regarding the points I actually raise rather than what you think I raise or stop wasting our time.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not here forum-shopping again, bringing up (and misrepresenting) issues resolved months ago, in a desperate attempt to rehabilitate conspiracy theories – and, inter alia, trying to get permission for whatever WP:OR essays I might want to insert into an article. Only you are. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the only realistic solution is going to involve an RFC/U over IDHT and an possibly a site ban. Bruce simply doesn't seem to be able to let go of this.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The old ply of we can't answer his actual arguments and our strawmen don't work let's try to censor} the editor.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd characterize it as an invincible communication failure: We provide what we believe are clear, cogent, and compelling explanations; you refuse to accept the response.  At some point, we have to give up and admit that no amount of human effort can make you understand how and why the policies work this way, and stop the endless waste of time and energy on re-re-re-re-discussing it.  It is impossible for you to change our minds about the policies; it appears to be impossible for us to change yours.  The only functional option left is to make you stop wasting our time with further doomed discussions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Crying "Heretic"
You know, this whole debate reminds me of a religious schism ... We have (to coin pseudo-religious sounding names): To sum this up, I think we actually do have a consensus that the policy needs to change... but we don't have a consensus on what we should change it to. To reach a true consensus, the various factions within the REFORM movement need to come to an agreement over the split between Conservative/Liberal and Traditionalist/Non-Traditionalist, and focus on the broad agreement. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Radical REMOVALISTS - a small but very vocal group of zealots who want VnT removed from the policy completely.
 * Orthodox RETENTIONISTS - an equally small but vocal group of zealots who wish to retain VnT in exactly the form it is in now, with no changes in wording or placement.
 * REFORMERS - The mainstream, who wish to retain VnT as a prominent part of the policy, but agree that VNT is problematic as it is. The REFORM group is however, split into sub-faction over several sub-issues.  The first split is over placement.
 * Conservative Reform faction - want VnT stated somewhere in the lede (ie the first few paragraphs)
 * Liberal Reform faction, are willing to move it out of the lede and into a separate section.
 * The REFORM movement is also divided over phrasing...
 * Traditionalists - want the phrasing of VnT to stay essentially as is, and think we should add explanatory sentences to make its meaning clearer.
 * Non-Traditionalists - are willing to amend the phrasing slightly, to make its meaning clearer.
 * Yes, I broadly agree with that analysis.— S Marshall T/C 00:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced my Orthodox faction is really so small. The people who want to change the Scripture don't seem to understand it; they've interpreted it to be a harsh teaching which is not the meaning intended by the simple, free-spirited philosophy of the true and original faith... Wnt (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What Wnt said. I've not changed my position on this--VnT is fine exactly where it is, exactly how it's phrased; augmentation can happen in the body to explain to those who aren't willing or able to grasp it in its current form. Having said that, I've got better things to do than debate how to change something that doesn't need changing. Jclemens (talk) 07:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I simply cannot resist this one. Doc   talk  07:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The Monk of the Holy Grail--got to love it. But seriously, Jclemens how can you look at the mess at Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15 and ʍaunus  "User BruceGrubb is for example arguing that we have to remove a statement by a recognized professional making a claim about the first usage of the word, because he himself has found an earlier usage. I say if the statement is significant we include it attributed to its source, regardless of whether BruceGrubb's or another editors original research suggest that the statement may be factually incorrect. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)"(Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/RfC) and say "VnT is fine exactly where it is, exactly how it's phrased"?  Clearly if these kind of interpretations are resulting in this 'accuracy be damned the statement meets Verifiability so we use it' or 'let's argue points the original editor never actually brought up reading our own OR into what he said' mentality then some has seriously gone wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG, Bruce, are you going to try to hijack this thread too with that issue that was solved months ago? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * For the inclusionist there's no hard choice here. You include the statement by the secondary source whether or not you think it is correct, and you include the observation you make directly from the primary source, and you let the reader decide.  It is important for an article to be complete, and for it to be verifiable, but it is not at all important, or even desirable, for it to present only one viewpoint about a fact.  A serious academic review doesn't ignore contradictory sources (well, alright, at least it shouldn't...) ; neither should we. Wnt (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think inclusionism has anything to do with it: That's straight-up NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the deletionists have their own version of NPOV, which is to select one source and call it "editorial discretion", or to not say anything at all. At least that's what I take from the previous discussions on this page. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's right I think. But you seem to be saying it like it's a bad thing. At the end of the day, Wikipedia isn't actually an academic review, so there is no reason for it to behave like one. What an academic review would never normally do in any case is knowingly tell lies to its readers. --FormerIP (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN
I believe that WP:BURDEN, while it should be the responsibility of the editor to provide a verifiable citation, if the edit is of good faith, a citation request should be asked rather than the more callous revert which I find to be objectionable regarding good faith edits. What do you think? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Best practice is to add a citation needed tag. But, ultimately, it's not the job of the editor who disputes the accuracy of a statement to disprove it, but the job of the editor who added it to support the statement. Note that this is not an excuse for "It's not cited, so I removed it per WP:BURDEN".  In order for this to be triggered, editor removing material must have a good-faith belief that the uncited statement is wrong--not just a passive observation that it's uncited. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in WP:BURDEN stating that an editor has to believe an uncited statement is inaccurate to justify removal. Doniago (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hinted at or suggested in a few places (not explicitly required that I know of) and also a reasonable expectation. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Er...wouldn't that sort of go against the whole spirit of WP:V to begin with, if we're saying, "It's fine to include accurate information with or without sourcing?" I thought the point of this policy was that accuracy isn't the primary concern, verifiability is. Doniago (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the FAQ on this page seems to support my understanding that the requirement for inclusion is verifiability, not accuracy... Doniago (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is an absolute requirement for inclusion. End of story.  There is no primary or secondary or statement that accuracy is not a goal. I think that you just added another example of someone misled by "not truth". North8000 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is right up there in the lead of wp:V actually: "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed." Asking for a citation removing material because it is uncited is only justified if you are also challenging the content itself. Yoenit (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what the policy says. Removing material is considered a challenge. If Editor A adds material without a citation, Editor B has the right to challenge it via removal, and Editor A or anyone else can re-add it with a citation. There's nothing stating that material should only be "challenged" if an editor believes it to be inaccurate, that I can see. Doniago (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, It's hinted at or suggested in a few places (not explicitly required that I know of) and also a reasonable expectation. You are just repeating the "not explicitly required" part. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but JClemens above said that an editor "must have a good-faith belief that the uncited statement is wrong" prior to removal...and as I said, and you apparently agree with, that's not actually the case. Doniago (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I always understood "challenge" to refer to "challenging the content" (=dispute its accuracy) rather than "challenging the edit" as in your interpretation. Yoenit (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I so wish it were exactly as you describe, and agree with you that it should be that way. At least that the tagger/deleter would need to merely raise some type of question. But it isn't explicitly required. North8000 (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What kind of question would one raise? Whether or not there's a source provided would seem to be a pretty basic question on the face of it... Doniago (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm? I was referring to challenging the content. WP:MINREF classifies the removal of content as a challenge. Apologies if I misunderstood you. Doniago (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Above you talked about removing material you believe to be accurate because it is uncited. Can you explain how you consider that "challenging the content"? Yoenit (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I noted, WP:MINREF classifies removing content as a (presumably legitimate) form of challenging it. Whether or not the material is accurate is essentially beside the point (though if I saw inaccurate material that was sourced I'd certainly try to reflect the fact that the material was known to be inaccurate...though that would in turn require a contradicting soure). It doesn't matter whether the content or the edit is being challenged IMO, because the end result should be the same - the addition of a citation. Doniago (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's circular reasoning. AGF requires that a presumably accurate, but unsourced statement be left and tagged as unsupported, vs. being removed as probably incorrect.  In order to trigger that clause of MINREF to begin with, the original removing editor would need to have had a good-faith belief that the content was inaccurate.  We don't remove things because they're uncited, except in certain specific cases where "getting it wrong" would cause harm to people (e.g. BLP), we remove things because they're uncited AND there's a good faith belief that they're wrong. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an interpretation that does not seem to be in accordance with how others in this conversation feel. If policy really is supposed to be taken in that manner, I think some revisions are needed. IMO an editor can both AGF and uphold WP:V by dealing with the unsourced material by removing or tagging it while making it clear that the underlying reasoning has nothing to do with the contributing editor's intentions. It's not a matter of the editor meaning harm to the project, it's a matter of their contribution being in violation of policy. Indeed, that's why we have Level 1 warnings if one wishes to use them...they are a way of notifying editors of problems while assuming good faith. Doniago (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am most assuredly not responsible for what other people "feel". The "remove it if it's not sourced!" argument has never been credible, because policy describes practice, and, in practice, the vast majority of Wikipedia is uncited, often with citation needed tags.  Thus, the imperative that any editor can remove anything uncited without any actual belief that is incorrect is at odds with how Wikipedia actually works.  No RfC is needed to clarify the language, because the alternative you note that some people prefer is at odds with our practices. Jclemens (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In the article Citizen Kane an edit was reverted stating that the current distributor of that film is Warner Bros., even though it was mentioned elsewhere in the article stating that Warner Bros. is the current distributor of Citizen Kane. I had to revert the deletion and added an obvious citation already in the article which shows that Warner Bros. is the current distributor of Citizen Kane. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That something is sourced once in an article does not mean, to my understanding, that the same information should be repeated elsewhere in the article without sourcing. I believe the lead is generally considered an exception, as it's summarizing the article body. As a separate and admittedly off-topic issue, if the information was already stated and sourced previously, why was it being added again? In any case, references are frequently repeated within an article and I think the best approach would be to repeat the use of the source. Doniago (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The material was added in the Citizen Kane article to clarify that RKO was the original distributor and Warner Bros. is the current distributor in the article's infobox. It is also added in the Prints section of the article regarding Turner Entertainment's ownership of the film before Warner Bros. parent Time Warner bought Turner.


 * We expect people to read articles, and to check the sources, when they mark things as unsourced. If they mark something as unsourced that is literally cited elsewhere in the article, the right response is a trout. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking this in terms of changing the policy text or as best practices go? What policy says and how editors implement them are two different things. In my experience, most edits without a cite get reverted. Some editors will add a citation needed tag as Jclemens suggests, but they seem to be the minority. Occasionally, you'll even find editors who will find cites themselves, but they're in an even smaller minority. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (maybe not much) I've considered it my personal best practice to remove unsourced material if I can identify the contributing editor, and then generally notify said editor as to why the content has been removed. Oftentimes it's an IP who isn't aware of or doesn't care about policy, sometimes it's an editor who just forgot to add a cite, but regardless, I generally assume that if someone's going to add material that they are the best point for locating a source (i.e. it's not as though the information just popped into their head). Plus if I notify them directly then I can reasonably assume they'll know what happened even if they're not watching the article. If I can't identify the contributing editor then I'll almost always tag rather than engaging in outright removal, barring extreme circumstances. Doniago (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is time to repeat the advice I give whenever someone complains about WP:BURDEN... First, think about all the time and effort it is taking to complain (both here and at the article talk page)... Now ask yourself how much effort it would have taken to do a quick google search, locate a source, and slap the URL into the article as a citation.  I have found that it is almost always easier to simply return the material with a source than it is to complain about its removal. Don't worry about whether the removal was "legitimate" or not... just return the material with a source and be done with it. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you do about articles that are years old, mostly unsourced, with no one's actively working on them? There was an instance, not too long ago, where we had an editor WP:POINTedly demanding other editors add sources to an article or they were going to do mass deletions of content.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It somewhat depends on the scenario, specifically whether the article has been tagged for needing sources, and whether sourcing is available. In a best case scenario, if it's something I can't locate sourcing for myself, I tag it and hopefully another editor can step in. In a worst-case scenario, maybe it's time to consider proposing a deletion. I'm quite willing to move unsourced sections of articles to their respective Talk page pending the addition of sources. Doniago (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, sources existed. No one wanted to spend the time to find them, that was the problem.  Doing a Google search to find a source may only take a couple minutes (and filling those stupid cite templates takes a couple more), but multiply that by hundreds and hundreds of statements in an article and we're talking about hours and hours of work.  Previously, I took an almost completely unreferenced BLP to be fully sourced and it was a total bitch.  Check out the before and after dates.  It took over a month to fully source it!  What made matters worse is that rarely did any of the new sources match everything the article said, so I had to rewrite almost every sentence to match the new source.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One should of course take it on an individual basis, but there is and should be no requirement that we cannot remove material for being unsourced. Indeed, removing additions which are unsourced is not only standard practice, it's necessary in order to allow the regulars to maintain Wikipedia articles long term without undue stress.  If it looks really good, fact tag it.  If it looks like it might or might not be true but you don't know, remove at your discretion.  You can usually tell when an editor knows what they are talking about, in which case you might want to tag rather than remove.  It also has to do with the value of the addition. I agree with  Doniago that "Removing material is considered a challenge."  It's a challenge per BURDEN to the editor who adds material to source it unless it's obviously correct material.  Of course you may choose to leave in material you believe to be correct, but if you don't know, then you should be able to remove or tag at your own discretion.  There are too many factors to have a set policy on what you should do.  And no, I should not have to read the whole article to determine if something has a source in another section, such a requirement is insane.  A Quest For Knowledge says it very well: we just can't be expected to source all the unsourced articles around here.  There is a simple choice: less content that is verified, or more content that isn't verified (unverifiable in practice).  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's pretty unfortunate. I have to admit I'm not really invested enough in Wikipedia to put that kind of work into an article myself...partly because I'm building a wiki basically from the ground up in my spare time...and trying to keep everything well-referenced along the way. I forgot to mention the option of just leaving the article alone, though I'd say even tagging it is a better approach than that. Shame there weren't other editors who could lend a hand. Doniago (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to agree with Becritical. As an aside, I think the articles where material was going to be mass removed were all on astrology and had serious problems, although the editor's approach was not helpful. Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was referring to a different situation, but yes, the astrology articles are/were problematic. (I haven't followed the topic too closely after an editor was topic-banned (who's now looking at possible site ban)).  This is completely off-topic but the real problem with Wikipedia is that no one is in charge.  In any real life organization, you have someone in a position of authority who makes a decision and everyone listens.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

You know, this brings up the issue of biting new comers. Often times, a newbie comes along, adds something to an article without a cite and it gets immediately reverted by one of the regulars. I'm reminded of the wise advice provided by another editor. When a newcomer adds new information to an article like this, rather than revert it and fight against it, try to work with it and either find the appropriate reference or help the newcomer track it down. We want to welcome newcomers and teach them. We want to keep our minds open to new contributions. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone add something unsourced, but sourceable to an article just to have it reverted by someone else because it's easier to click the revert link than spend the 2 minutes to do a Google search. What to do about this problem, I don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that 90% of those are done as a part of a battle, most often a POV or routine pissing war. The 90% answer is immensely simple. Require that the person state a concern (e.g. "not sure its accurate", "implausible" etc.) in addition to saying it's unsourced when tagging / deleting. They do not need to argue or defend their concern, just state it. This will solve 90% of these, including misuse of this policy in those areas.  North8000 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a biting issue. I would say we need a special thing maybe twinkle that allows us to easily point a new editor to the sourcing policy if we're reverting for lack of sources.  We need to respect the regulars as well after all: putting the burden on the person trying to maintain the verifiability of the encyclopedia isn't fair or doable.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There are pre-existing warning templates relating to unsourced material that include such pointers. Doniago (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I think that a smaller statement would be helpful: "If you believe the unsourced material is both accurate and verifiable, then you personally should not remove it solely because no editor has yet added an inline citation."  This alone should stop the silliest of deletions.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if it was followed by a statement of what an editor should do if the information is unsourced but likely can be verified. Doniago (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In that instance, the editor is not required to do anything at all. S/he may voluntarily choose to search for a source, but there is nothing that the editor really "should" do, and in some cases (e.g., the "unsourced but likely verifiable" claim that the human hand normally contains four fingers and one thumb), the editor really should not do anything at all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and now we're back to the notion that unsourced information is fine as long as it's "probably true", which I don't agree with. Doniago (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This policy has said for years and years now that unsourced information is fine (except for contentious matter about BLPs)—right up until the moment that someone actually WP:CHALLENGEs it. If you don't like the policy, that's not my problem.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that unsourced information is fine as long as it's "probably true" has never been part of the policy. We do tolerate a lot of unsourced information, though, because it's often better to focus on things that are likely not right, and try to fix or remove those.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, the policy prohibits unsourcable information, not unsourced information. In operational practice, it allows people to take action against unsourced information.  North8000 (talk) 10:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the rule has always been that information must be verifiABLE (=possible to verify with a reliable source), not that it must be verifiED (=currently supported by an inline citation). See, e.g., "In practice, you do not need to attribute everything", etc.  Based on his comments, Doniago apparently dislikes the long-standing rule.  He's certainly not alone in thinking that everything ought to be followed by an inline citation, but it is very much a minority position.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Polling concept on policy pages
I copied the following message of JakeInJoisey from another section and pasted it here. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Meta Comment - This "polling" concept is, for me, both a new and somewhat disquieting approach. I would appreciate some comment as to its possible ramifications. One of the sore points inre the prior RfC was the insufficiency of the notification process utilized for a proposed change to a critical WP:Policy. Am I to understand that, assuming this "poll" indicates "support", this "poll" could be legitimately used to amend current policy language or would a more broad-based solicitation for comment be utilized prior to incorporating new language? Just askin'. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a question: If you oppose asking people how they feel about a proposed change, what method do you propose to guage how people feel about a proposed change? It seems to me to be impossible to find out if people agree or disagree with something unless we ask people if they agree or disagree with something.  -- Jayron  32  05:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you oppose asking people how they feel about a proposed change...
 * And I said that where? I'm soliciting thoughts on the legitimacy of this "poll" process as a sole means to legitimately change CORE policies. The notification of a proposed change methodology initially utilized in the prior RfC was, IMHO, justifiably criticized as wholly inadequate. It seems to me self evident that core policy pages should require a MUCH higher mandate for broad community notification than even some non-core policy pages . My concern here is largely for the stability of this project in an atmosphere where apparently activist editors are looking to, perhaps, fundamentally change a time-proven WP conceptualization. I believe this to be a conversation worth having. JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Who knows. The one thing that we do know is that the corrupted process that the RFC was put through is not viable, it blocks any real change.  And, I'm guessing that about 100 changes in core policies were made in the last month with no such process. The key difference were that they are non-controversial. This particular one is looking non-controversial.  The only "oppose" so far did not oppose the change, they just said it didn't go far enough. The only person who expressed some dislike for the change itself was me, and I eventually listed myself under "support". North8000 (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think JJ's concern is whether this leads to the policy being changed without a wider, publicised exercise. If it does result in the policy being amended, even if non-controversial as you say, it is likely to be reverted because of lack of consensus, thus creating yet another storm. Leaky  Caldron  12:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A poll is not a ballot on whether to adopt a proposed change... it is a survey of editors designed to quickly gauge the level of consensus. Sometimes a poll can tell us whether a consensus exists (this is the case when there is a large sample size of editors, and either overwhelming support or opposition).  Sometimes all a poll can tell us is whether a consensus is likely (this is the case when there is a smaller sample size, but agreement among that small sample on support or opposition).  And often all a poll will tell us is whether we are headed in the right direction (if the results are mixed, but with a majority in support) or the wrong direction (mixed, but with a majority opposed). Blueboar (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Should it be necessary to have a huge-scale RFC for every change to this policy? Our current practice is that a small number of editor can continue enlarging an RFC, with more and more notifications to more and more people, until the prospective change is stopped.  Thus the worst and most toxic phrases in this policy were introduced without any consensus at all, but can't be removed without individually consulting every editor who logs in for a month.  I find this absolutely incredible.— S Marshall  T/C 13:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is not necessary to have a huge-scale RFC for every change... but, it can be necessary to have a huge-scale RFC for certain changes. This is one of those situations.  The reason why we needed a huge-scale RFC in this case is that while there are editors who strongly believe (as you do) that the phrases in question are "toxic", there are also editors who strongly disagree, and feel that the phrases in question are crucial.  Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And in Wikipedia's largest ever RFC, what we found was that one "crucial" vote outweighs two "toxic" votes. (Okay, 1:1.85.)  I submit that the reason why "crucial" people find the idea of a straight poll "somewhat disquieting" is because they know how a simple majority vote would pan out.  Nevertheless, I do think that when we have a simple either/or choice that isn't achieving consensus either way, then using a simple majority vote as a tiebreaker has a great deal to recommend it.— S Marshall  T/C 15:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that presenting people with blunt either/or choices is by its nature an exercise in divisiveness ... when faced with either/or people are encouraged to form entrenched positions. Consensus building, on the other hand, is all about finding common ground.  It's about compromise... it's about everyone saying "good enough" rather than "perfect".  Blueboar (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding going outside this talk page for opinions, I just looked at the policy WP:Consensus for guidance. From that policy it can be seen that in general the Wikipedia system involves going to wider opinion input when there isn't consensus. In many cases, sufficient consensus occurs when an editor simply makes a change and it isn't reverted. However, for stability in policies, WP:Consensus does advise a higher level of participation in policy decisions and advises that editors often propose substantive changes on the policy talk page to permit discussion first.

The policy WP:Consensus does not say that changes to policy, even substantive changes, requires going outside the policy talk page when consensus is reached on the policy talk page. In general, WP:CONSENSUS only advises seeking additional input if consensus hasn't been reached.

The ideas of WP:CONSENSUS specific to policy pages are expressed in the following excerpt from the section Level of consensus,
 * "Wikipedia has a higher standard of participation and consensus for changes to Policies and guidelines than to other types of articles. This is because they reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important to the community. As a result, editors often propose substantive changes on the talk page first to permit discussion before implementing the change. Changes may be made without prior discussion, but they are subject to a high level of scrutiny. The community is more likely to accept edits to policy if they are made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others."

In conclusion, if consensus for a change is reached on a policy talk page, there is no requirement or advice in WP:CONSENSUS to go outside a policy talk page for additional opinion on any type of change. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on the change, substantive or major changes should be widely publicized outside the policy talk page per Policies and guidelines. Dreadstar  ☥   06:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The link Dreadstar provided did not say that. The only types of changes it advised to be publicized outside the policy talk page were major changes. Examples of major changes are promotions of pages to guideline or policy level. Here's the relevant excerpt from Dreadstar's link.
 * "Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time.


 * If the result of discussions is unclear, then it should be evaluated by an administrator or other independent editor, as in the proposal process. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate."
 * Note that the first paragraph refers to substantive changes, and does not require or advise going outside the policy talk page to publicize to the community in general. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar, you're right, when one wishes to change core policies in any significant way, one obviously needs to get wider community input. There are a very small core of editors who hang about specific policy pages, spending much if not most of their time there, and who have an almost limitless patience for trying to re-write them to suit their personal needs or desires. The kinds of editors who might have 15% of their total Wikipedia edits (one or two thousand edits) spent on the Talk: pages of a couple of policies. I guess the idea here is that if someone sticks around at a page long enough, he or she will through dint of everyone who cares getting frustrating and leaving, or simply by slipping something by, eventually get their way. Nevertheless, this is not consensus. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I found the above comment of Jayjg disruptive and with little substance. This talk page seemed to be heading towards a more productive and cooperative environment. Perhaps editors who disagree with it and similar types of comments should ignore them? Not sure how to handle this. See also a previous discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jayjg. Dreadstar ☥   20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about Bob, the link I provided says exactly what I said it says; "Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate". The first paragraph does not specify anything about the scope of the discussion, it merely says "talk page discussion", the second sentence actually specifies that substantive changes be "publicized to the community", which means "consult widely" outside one single talk page, per Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance#General recommendations #7. It also does not define "major changes" as being only promotions of pages to guideline or policy level"".  The dynamics between the first paragraph and the second in the section Policies_and_guidelines cannot be isolcated from each other, they work together.  Dreadstar  ☥   17:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar, Looks like we interpret your link differently. I think the term  "major changes" used in your link is a step up from the term "substantive changes" also mentioned at your link and at WP:Consensus.  I'll leave it to other editors to interpret the policy for themselves from the relevant policy excerpts I gave in two of my previous messages   here  from Consensus and here from your link Policies and guidelines. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You can try to parse those words all you like, but the bottom line is that significant changes need widespread advertisement and a consensus, whether they be substantive, major, or even major substantive. I say that all policy is substantive and changes to it beyond minor fixes or copyediting is major - e.g. changing or removing VnT, that's major and needs widespread advertisement and participation.  Dreadstar  ☥   19:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See discussion in section below about difference between major and substantive changes. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is, of course, the whole point: every few weeks a small group of editors tries to get VnT removed from this policy, the effort fails, and then a new campaign begins almost immediately. This new ploy is quite interesting though - simply assert that widespread consensus isn't actually needed for the change (because the last time it was sought, it was not received). Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem confused, Jayjg. The effort is not to remove VnT from the policy but to remove it from the lede, and the group of editors who want to achieve it is the exact opposite of "small", which is an adjective that applies much better to those who want to keep the status quo.— S Marshall  T/C 22:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite, actually: removing it from the lede was the first step in removing it entirely, as more than one editor has stated explicitly, and the number of editors regularly and actively militating to remove it is indeed quite small. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the argument from adverse consequences (ie Slippery slope) logic and rhetoric fallacy that was part of Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit in The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark ISBN 0-394-53512-X pg 212-216. The reality is that the "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" part of WP:V is in itself enough to prevent the kind of wild OR people against changing WP:V are claiming. To date I can't recall any editor saying that we should remove that part of WP:V. Heck my own version (tweeked):

actually clarifies what is meant by reliable source in this context. The return to the "first threshold" phrasing is because there are other polices that can keep material meeting Verifiability out; WP:Weight immediately comes to mind. Of course it can be argued that NPOV succeeds WP:Weight but that is NOT arguments of Verifiability and should be relegated to the relevant noticeboard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not just the slippery slope fallacy. There's appeal to motive in there as well, and a hasty generalisation (Jayjg's reasoning is that of a small number of editors active on this talk page, a small number are trying to alter VNT, so they can be dismissed).  I can't seem to find anything in that post that isn't a logical fallacy.— S Marshall  T/C 12:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All too true. As I said in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_51 that I think in some editors mind's Verifiability is truth and as a result anything presented on the talk page challenging that truth gets labeled as OR regardless of how reliable it is.  The kneejerk reaction to my initial comment in Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15 and ʍaunus' 7 October 2011 (UTC) comment in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/RfC show there are editors that have view along with to my eyes are some really bizarre ideas as what constitutes OR especially in the light of what WP:NOTOR says.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Except, S Marshall, for the small problem that that's not my reasoning, and so there's really nothing in your post (much less Bruce's "baloney") that isn't "confused" or "a logical fallacy". For further information on the issues with your reasoning, please read straw man. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain your reasoning, then, since I can't seem to perceive a coherent view in what you've said so far.— S Marshall T/C 12:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree and IMHO the idea that the removal of "Verifiability, not truth" would somehow lead to the removal of "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question" is a Non sequitur (logic) fallacy as well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What the phrase means
We seem to have a question above about what the phrase "major change" means. Well, I originally wrote most of that section over at POLICY, so let me just tell you what it means: A major change is something that substantially departs from the previous approach. A major change always involves a change of meaning. No decent editor would look at the versions before and after a major change and think that they said the same thing.

A major change is not a change that intends to say the same thing (or almost), only in a way that more people will understand it (at least in the opinion of the person making the change). A major change is not an incremental change. A major change is not merely a change of emphasis or intensity (e.g., from "recommended" to "strongly recommended"). A major change is not merely a fuller description of the existing advice. A major change is not the type of routine, simple, standard change that happens on all sorts of advice pages every day of the week.

Changes like this and this and this are routine, simple, incremental changes rather than major changes: You might agree or disagree with the changes, but they are not worthy of calling the whole community's attention to.

This, on the other hand, is unquestionably a major change, and 180K of talk page comments went into crafting it. The creation of a new CSD criterion is a major change.

(And, naturally, any change that I make to a policy or guideline is a minor one. ) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Based on your intention in writing the policy and understanding of the phrase "major change", is the proposed change in the above section Consensus poll re adding two sentences to the first paragraph of WP:Verifiability a "major change"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. This policy has never said that everything that's verifiable gets added, or that other policies don't affect inclusion, and in fact has said exactly these kinds of things in the fourth paragraph for a while now, so this is more of a clarification than a departure.
 * However, given the unfortunate emotional problems that have developed around these paragraphs, it might be wise to follow the most inclusive, well-advertised process possible, simply so that you don't have to have bureaucratic discussions about these things. "Not required" is not the same as "not a good idea".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Here's an example of a change on the policy page WP:Consensus. Would that be a "major change"? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I've already decided that crawling through that complex diff to see whether there were any substantive changes wasn't worth my time.  However, from the comments on the talk page, I believe that it was intended to be non-substantive, or at least mostly non-substantive (e.g., removing the use of the second-person grammatical constructs).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In the following excerpt from  Policies_and_guidelines, were the terms  "substantive changes" and "major changes" intended to have the same meaning?
 * "Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time.


 * If the result of discussions is unclear, then it should be evaluated by an administrator or other independent editor, as in the proposal process. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate."
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, a substantive change is not necessarily a major change. As an example, adding a completely new CSD criterion is obviously a major change.  However, saying that ____ articles are included (or are explicitly excluded) from an existing CSD criterion is a substantive change, but not necessarily a major one.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Polling the underlying points
I think we're not really going anywhere. Most proposals etc. have so many things in them that we're not really sorting anything out. How about a non-binding specific poll for the regulars here that parses out the core questions relating to the main contentious topic. I would flesh out and propose it if there is interest, but roughly it would ask:


 * What is your preferred outcome regarding the wording and prominence of VNT? How far would you be willing to deviate from that in a compromise, and what (if anything) would you require to make that deviation.
 * Do you agree that the meaning of "not truth" in this policy should be only to reinforce that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement? And if you disagree, what else should it mean?

Again, this would be non-binding, and just a way to look for ways forward. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since VNT exists not for policy reasons, but sociopolitical reasons, maybe we need a guideline for creating policies. I would be in favor of the guideline disavowing confounding sociopolitical concepts, but on the otherhand, if the guideline said that Wikipedia considered sociopolitical pressure to be acceptable in policies, VNT would gain protection  be off the chopping block of removal, and people would have less reason to argue that moving VNT lower in the policy could potentially be a step to removal.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * VNT exists not for policy reasons, but sociopolitical reasons, for me that is a contentious claim, unscintillaing. Please demonstrate it! 20040302 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting that we don't even have the most basic agreement on why VNT is in the policy. See Verifiability/First sentence/Polls. Unscintillating (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Trypotofish's proposal revisited

 * (EC) I don't suppose I count as a "regular" here, I am just someone who "voted" in the RfC and have made a few comments here and there. But I just wanted to comment that if a new compromise is to be considered, that the proposal made by Tryptofish here should be included in the options.  It has already been archived, but I don't want it to get "lost."  I think it is the best proposal so far.  It includes "not truth" in the third sentence, and simultaneously explains what it means, which I think it is necessary because the phrase "verifiability not truth" is self-contradictory and is really meaningless without an explanation.  Tryptofish's version keeps the focus on "verifiability" (which is what the policy is about) without relegating the "not truth" language (which some people seem to like so much) to another paragraph or section.  I do think that the parenthetical at the end of Tryptofish's last sentence should be eliminated, but that's not really what this debate is about.  Neutron (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been many good proposals, and many 75% good proposals.  My idea is to poll the underlying points  which I think would be step one in figuring something out.   North8000 (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I agree Tryptofish's proposal has merit, here is a variation that is consistent with the first word "The" in the policy and removes some text,
 * Unscintillating (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no specific objection to it. But it adds words/complexity without really resolving the main issue. North8000 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the context of baby steps, is this moving forward? Here is one point, it breaks up the compound in the first sentence that links the multiple meanings in the word "threshold" with "not truth".  Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutron, thank you. Needless to say, I think this may be a useful starting point. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an improvement over the status quo, although it's unfortunate that it does leave VNT in the lede.— S Marshall T/C 00:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that point. I have suggested it for one reason:  I think it's more likely to get a "consensus" than any other version that takes "not truth" out of the first sentence.  Neutron (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to oppose the boxed proposal above, because it opens the gate to my chief worry, which is that deletionists will put their own unreferenced opinion about something being false on an even level with a referenced statement to the contrary, then saying (as in any unclear situation) that their default is to take it out. No matter whether you think something is true and want to put it in or think it's false and want to take it out, you should need a verifiable source for your belief.  Otherwise, for example, we're going to have well-educated but ignorant editors going into articles about herbal medicines and taking out all kinds of interesting leads on potential health effects, saying that no matter what the journal article says "everybody knows this stuff doesn't work". Wnt (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

combining Tryptofish's version with BG's version

 * Why not combine Tryptofish's version with my own so we don't have a sound bite problem as we do with the current version:


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


 * The first 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.

If the material is unverifiable, do not add it, regardless of how convinced you are of its truth. In that sense, Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, verifiable material may be excluded under WP:DUE, WP:NOTWP:COPYVIO, and Inaccuracy.

Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.
 * }

This gathers everything into one nice package and addresses many of the problems seen.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I just commented in the subsection above, I think Tryptofish's version (as modified by Unscintillating) -- with "not truth" in the first paragraph, but not the first sentence -- is more likely to get a consensus than your version. Neutron (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. The only thing it'll gain consensus with it kept in the first paragraph would be from editors here. That is not to say other editors that don't frequent this page don't have the same opinions as some here, but the majority want it removed entirely and merely pushing it back a few sentances but still relying heavily on VnT would probably not be enough to be seen as a real attempt at a compromise. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  03:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"without exception...being attributable to a reliable, published source ". That's not true. Original images taken by Wikipedia editors which haven't been published are allowed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, original images are allowed... but there is a caveat... If an editor creates an original image in order to illustrate something mentioned in the text, then it is the text that must be Verifiable. However, if an editor creates an original image (such as a chart of graph) in order to present information that isn't covered in the text, then WP:V (and WP:OR) applies to the image. So... not every original image is an exception. Blueboar (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is true and I would strongly oppose any such language that would undermine that, or drawn images, in the slightest. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  03:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The "without exception...being attributable to a reliable, published source " is based on the current language under Verifiability. As talked about in Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_37 and Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/Archive_32 such original pictures, graphs, etc can have major OR issues.  Even a chart (Talk:Jesus_myth_theory/definition) can have OR problems out the wazoo.  I would hope that the original images A Quest For Knowledge and User:Jinnai are talking about are actually based on a reliable, published source and are just are not attributed; otherwise they could be violating OR.  Some examples so we are not talking about this blind would be helpful.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Images have been a gray area. I think that trying to bundle a cleanup of that into first sentence discussions is not a good plan. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I think a clean up of the entire intro is the perfect thing to look at in first sentence discussions because it causes you to wonder if the problem is so much in the first sentence or in the way the entire intro is set up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary of comments
I did a read through all of the RFC comments with respect to thoughts on the core issues. This isn't mathematical, but just a gut feel summary

The very high frequency points were were:

Some other points made many times
 * "Not truth" does more harm than good because it is often misused, and/or interpreted to mean things other than just reinforcing the verifiability requirement
 * "Verifiability not truth" is a strong statement that helps reinforce the verifiability requirement. Changing it would weaken that.


 * Oppose the change because it added complexity
 * Supported the change because it was a compromise, didn't have a problem with "not truth"
 * Opposed the change because it didn't go far enough, it left "not truth" in
 * Wished we would have included fixes on secondary issues in the proposal

Some other points made a few times'


 * "Finger in the dike" thinking.  Oppose it because this is the first step on a plan to totally get rid of it.
 * Sort of like the extra meanings that sometimes get applied to "not truth"

What that says about a potential new version

 * The recent proposals which add material about sidebar items sort of miss the mark regarding being an overall solution. They add length and complexity without addressing the main "for change" concerns.
 * A proposal which leaves VNT in its current position but adds something which succinctly and strongly removes what most would call it's "unintended" meanings would probably pass.
 * A proposal to simply delete "not truth" might pass

North8000 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, North8000 I think this is useful. Following on what you wrote, I would way that if the concern with V not T is "because it is often misused," one urgent forward step would be to identify the major ways it is misused, and add clarification on how not to use it.


 * I would add one more point. I think one specific reason why people are anxious about removing this phrase is that removing it would encourage certain forms of original research.  If I am right about this, then another way forward would be to strengthen our provisions against original research.


 * But, and this really is my final point (!!), I think a nagging issue underlying all of this has for a long time been: if we are prohibited from doing "original research," what kind of research should we do? I think many of us think the answer is obvious, but I also think many people are very disatisfied with the quality of research done by many editors, which maybe means that many editors do need nmore guideance about how to do the kind of research a good encyclopedia needs.  I think when after we created the Verifiability policy, some editors tried to use this as a way to instruct people as to what kind of research they need to do, but obviously "verifiable" is not the only criteris for good research.  So what else needs to be said?  Can we all agree that there is something in between "verifiable" and "original research" that we want to encourage editors to do?  Whatever the answer is, I do not think we need the word "truth" to explain it ... but I do not doubt that this is an important and legitimate question that needs an answer. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In my view it could be fully explained and 80% resolved by adding one sentence as follows: "Not truth" in this policy means only that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't deal with the major problem with "not truth"--the WP:inaccuracy problem. When editors like ʍaunus said that a demonstrably false statement should have been kept it shows there are editors that read "truth" in manner of the second definition of the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: "the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality".--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * North, thanks. As you say, a further step would be to make this more quantitative. I think that what got started at User:Crazynas/verifiability rfc could be a way of accomplishing that goal in a thoughtful way. Of your three bullet points about what it says about the next proposal, my gut tells me that the second bullet point is the key one. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I applaud that effort, but that looks so so immensely difficult and complex that it is unlikely to get accomplished. North8000 (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Slrubenstein I think you hit the nail on the head with your "Can we all agree that there is something in between "verifiable" and "original research" that we want to encourage editors to do?" question. In Focal infection theory I straddled that line in an effort to come up with what IMHO was the most NPOV article considering the quality of the material available.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bruce, do you think that this question has to be answered on a case-by-case basis at each article? Or perhaps broad wikiprojects (social sciences, life sciences, physical sciences, humanities, applied and mechanical arts and sciences, current events, etc) should come up with appropriate guidelines for articles within their project?  Or can general encyclopedia-wide guidelins be developed? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you two have gone into another completely different but very worth topic. I think that to make any headway there you'll have to get into the mechanics of the policies nad situations covered. When you distill it down, wp:nor is just a duplication of wp:ver, with an emphasis on excluding real world original research when it can't comply with wp:ver.  So there is certainly no exclusion of researching sources. But a strict interpretation of wp:nor does outlaw all Wikipedia writing except for direct quotes.  As is usual, common sense is applied on most (but not all) articles, and on contentious articles, this difference between policy and reality can and does get misused to conduct warfare via wikilawyering. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My issue is taken not only how it is used - properly or improperly - here, but also how it can affect our image beyond Wikimedia to the rest of the world. Since the English version is the defacto international version, this means that a core policy like this page is going to - and has been - interpreted by non-Wikipedian editors to mean something else either intentionally or not. This is because of the way the phrasing allows for an easy cutoff point in addition to the rather poor choice of a slogan to define policy to begin with. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * @Slrubenstein I think a general encyclopedia-wide guideline being developed with some of the broad wikiprojects adding some of their own unique requirements (I'm thinking such as what is required under medical articles here) to the issue would be warranted. One of the biggest problems with old versions of the Jesus myth theory is when evidence of a definitions that didn't agree with what some editors thought it should be you got claims of OR and 'you are misreading that' even when those definitions were Verifiable.  SlimVirgin created Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition to collect the arguments under one heading rather than having scattered throughout the archives.  I don't blame the editors for that mess but the material--there is not much tying one author to another and at times it is not clear just what they arguing and it is very easy if you have read one source to read things in another that simply are not there.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish's version with the new sentences
Can we go back to talking about baby steps that might work? I'ld like to propose a minimal change which I think most people can find acceptable.

--LK (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

For me the biggest issue with VNT is the unintended additional meanings that get created for "not truth". This proposal helps a bit regarding that but I would like to sere the following sentenced added:
 * In this policy, "not truth" means simply that truth is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement.

I also think that this addresses some core concerns of the "change needed" folks. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * LK's proposal definitely moves us in the right direction. One of the things I really like is that it starts us off with a definition of the term "verifiability" before it raises the issue of "truth".  I could certainly support it, but suggest that we could clarify further if we re-order a few bits...
 * Just a suggestion. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll just try getting rid of the brackets to see what it looks like:
 * and maybe a few tweaks:
 * I presume that there will be complaints because the VnT is at the end, but the end is a good place for punchy slogans?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any of those would be fine with me. Do others like the idea of reordering "Threshold = Verifiability" to "Verifiability = threshold"?... I know that logically both statements are the same (they are commutative after all), but by swapping the terms we focus attention on the concept of "verifiability" (which is what the policy is about) as opposed to focusing on the concept of "thresholds".  We define verifiability as being a threshold, rather than defining threshold as being verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume that there will be complaints because the VnT is at the end, but the end is a good place for punchy slogans?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any of those would be fine with me. Do others like the idea of reordering "Threshold = Verifiability" to "Verifiability = threshold"?... I know that logically both statements are the same (they are commutative after all), but by swapping the terms we focus attention on the concept of "verifiability" (which is what the policy is about) as opposed to focusing on the concept of "thresholds".  We define verifiability as being a threshold, rather than defining threshold as being verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Any of those would be fine with me. Do others like the idea of reordering "Threshold = Verifiability" to "Verifiability = threshold"?... I know that logically both statements are the same (they are commutative after all), but by swapping the terms we focus attention on the concept of "verifiability" (which is what the policy is about) as opposed to focusing on the concept of "thresholds".  We define verifiability as being a threshold, rather than defining threshold as being verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I still must oppose this. Unverified assertions of "truth" must be prohibited just as much for those deleting information as for those adding it.  Limiting verifiability only to "this context" of adding information undermines the whole principle. Wnt (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that can be dealt with by saying "Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are convinced that the material is true, and do not remove verifiable content for the sole reason that you believe it to be untrue - in this context Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth." Scolaire (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement, though it's unfortunate that it keeps the toxic trio in the lede. Is there any way that we can use the word "inclusion" less than three times?  And can we finally change "threshold" to "criterion"?— S Marshall  T/C 16:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you would accept the policy if "the toxic trio" were in the second line? Your language suggests intransigence, but perhaps I misinterpret you. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My position is as it has been for well over a year now:- I am opposed to VNT, and I would like to see it replaced by something that isn't a contradiction in terms, isn't a slogan, and isn't overly simplistic. We need a nuanced and thoughtful disquisition, not VNT.  I have always said that I will continue to seek VNT's removal until I either succeed or see a consensus that Wikipedians want it to remain.  I would like to arrange for the next RFC to contain a concept question along the lines of: "would you rather see VNT remain where it is, be removed to a separate paragraph and explained more fully, or be replaced completely", so that we can learn what the community really wants, as opposed to the small subset of the community represented on this talk page, which I see as rather more hidebound and conservative than the community as a whole.— S Marshall  T/C 23:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

From my standpoint, anything under consideration for being the "main plan" needs to include clarification that avoids the unintended meanings of "not truth". I think that this also addresses the main issues that others have. 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wnt... I understand what you are saying, but I think we need to distinguish between article content and talk page discussion. WP:V deals with article content, and does not apply to talk pages.  What I am getting at is this: it is absolutely fine for an editor to raise the question of truth or untruth in discussion on a talk page... and such discussions usually involve multiple policies and guidelines. What happens as a result of that discussion will necessarily depend on the specific situation and, because of this, we simply can not (nor should not) make firm rules about it.  Each situation is going to be unique.
 * What we can make a firm rule about is the inappropriateness of adding unverifiable material to an article ...and our rule is: Don't add it... regardless of whether that material is true or not.  The reason why such material may not be added has nothing to do with its truth or falsity... the reason is that it is unverifiable.
 * Now... This firm rule barring the addition of unverifiable material leads to a second (slightly hedged) rule about situations when someone breaks that first rule... we have WP:BURDEN which (in limited situations) allows for the removal of unverifiable material. But again, the reason why we allow this is that the material is unverifiable... a determination that really has nothing to do with whether the material is true or not. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhere we miscommunicated; I wasn't thinking of talk pages. My point is that people should not delete things from an article based on original research and unconfirmed opinion any more than they add things on that basis.  I do think it is appropriate for people to speak about what is "true" on the talk page, because for example very often you can't find a source until you already know what it should say (for example, if you're looking for the escape velocity from Mars, it's a lot easier to find it on Google if you already know what the number is). Wnt (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Wnt, I do think there are potentially good reasons why we might need to remove lies from the encyclopaedia. Don't you?— S Marshall T/C 19:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To be direct, from the way I read it, Wnt is in what I've been calling the "5%" who LIKE one of the other (what 95% would call) unintended meanings of "not truth". North8000 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you are misreading what Wnt is saying and Scolaire got the general gist of but the wording is a little wonky. Take a look at Wikipedia_talk:These_are_not_original_research for the some of the ideas on how to deal with conflicting sources and the problems some of them could create.  As I said the ridiculous amount of arguing that it took to remove Stephen Barrett's claims regarding Weston Price (see Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_21 and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79 from that article is another example of the accuracy be damned it is verifiable mindset.  Once Weston Price's own words showed Stephen Barrett didn't know what he was talking about regarding the man the source should have been thrown out.  Instead we spent weeks arguing because some felt Stephen Barrett still met Verifiability even when it could be shown he was wrong using the very words of the dead man he was criticizing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, our readings of what Wnt said are directly opposite, so one of us guessed really wrong. But your point is one of my main points.   "Not truth" should not be usable to weigh in on the side of inclusion of false sourced material. North8000 (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can read that what Wnt states in the directly opposite of my point as earlier he expressly stated: "Tell the reader exactly what the sources say and most of the time contradictions dissolve into details. That's absolutely the essence of verifiability not truth." (...) "Unverified assertions of "truth" must be prohibited just as much for those deleting information as for those adding it." If possible please explain your reasoning for seeing Wnt in the opposite light.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In general, if you have a notable contemporary criticism of a scientist (since proved wrong) this verifiable information absolutely should be included in the article, including some detail on the thought process of the critic. However it is crucial to be clear that what is verified is the fact that these notable people made this criticism, not, of course, the facts (or falsehoods) of the criticism itself.  Because you should have other verifiable sources saying that the criticism is wrong, and you need to weight sources on that issue appropriately.  It would do a disservice to articles on the history of science to omit incorrect criticism, because science is a business of testing hypotheses - if you don't understand what alternatives to a theory were under consideration, you can't know why he chose to do certain experiments, or why other researchers may have been slow to learn from his conclusions. Wnt (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't fully understand the Price dispute but I'll submit this edit as an example of my thinking. When there is uncertainty in interpretation, strip out the blather and put in more direct quotations and otherwise try to summarize the source more closely. Wnt (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh that just makes things worse. While it is true that Price's work is used by holistic dentists everything he did was mainstream for his time whether it be support for Focal infection in the 1920s or that better nutrition could prevent or even reverse cavities in the 1930s. Take a look at Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_3 and Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_3 for more on the details. Also look at [] which ironically for that wiki gives a far more neutral view of Price then this one does.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think if we make the standard for inclusion "truth" and exclusion "falsity," the arguments will become even longer and more protracted. First, let's just accept the fact that any encyclopedia that is a "wiki"pedia, that anyone can edit without any editorial control, is bound to occasion tremendous arguments on talk page. Second, I think the solution to the problem BruceGrubb points to is to be very clear that verifiability is the threshold, and not the only requirement; that we are verifying not only that a point of view has been expressed in a reliable source, but that it is also significant, and that we must verify that we have sufficient information or context to give it due weight; and that we must verify that the source provided is not only reliable but appropriate (or use other language, the point is that it is not enough that a source be published, publication alone should not be the only requirement for inclusion even if it is a "threshold" requirement i.e. demands consideration. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes you are right.  That is why the lead of this policy should stick to what the policy is about.  Verifiability is required for inclusion of material. And if "not truth" were to stay, explain that it is ONLY to reinforce that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Slrubenstein has hit the nail on the head. As I said before the argument against "there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." (Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16) in the talk page for Jesus myth theory should have been on WP:WEIGHT issue and not that somehow a peer reviewed journal published by the American Anthropological Association was somehow unreliable--those kinds of arguments make us look ridiculous. Personally I would like to see at least links to WP:DUE, WP:NOTWP:COPYVIO, and Inaccuracy woven into the into the intro so we know 'ok this is not a Verifiability issue but one of these others' rather than clutter up the Verifiability noticeboard with stuff editors don't really understand.

For example, was the "(i)n the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection" statement from Ingle's Endodontics 5th edition (2002) Verifiable? Yes.

Was it also demonstrably factually inaccurate? Also yes per these two examples:

"Today the concept of focal infection has been integrated into the practice of medicine. One speaks no longer of the theory of focal infection; one recognizes focal infection as a definite pathologic condition requiring scientific diagnosis and treatment." (1947 Journal of the American Medical Association Volume 133:2 page 111)

"Although in recent years the concept of focal infection has narrowed considerably in scope, its fundamental principle is still valid", (Galloway, Thomas C. M.D. (1957) "Relation of Tonsillectomy and Adenoidectomy to Poliomtyelitis" JAMA. 1957;163(7):519-521. doi: 10.1001/jama.1957.02970420001001)

Was arguing that the statement that the Ingle's Endodontics 5th edition (2002) statement did not meet Verifiability (Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_90) a good one? In retrospect likely not as you tend to get bogged down in arguments of the entire work passing and failing Verifiability and that goes nowhere.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Broadly, I'd be happy to support pretty much any of the variations that have been discussed here. As a general piece of advice, the best way to improve the odds of acceptance by the community is to minimize the number of changes from what the page says now. Let go of removing VNT in its entirety. It's fine if it's later in the paragraph; I doubt anyone will really oppose simply because of that. But it should still be there. And beyond that, make absolutely as few changes as possible from the status quo, just the absolute minimum needed to clear up what "not truth" really means and to communicate "not a guarantee". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Trypto - Do you think the changes that are now being proposed go too far? Blueboar (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, probably not. They are certainly better than a lot of other versions that have been considered in recent weeks. In my opinion, there isn't a lot of substance differing between them. Instead, they differ in terms of tweaks of the wording (not that getting the wording just right isn't important!). I'm just suggesting that, in the course of polishing the wording, the options that make the least change from the present should be preferred over those that make more changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that they barely address the core issue. Sometihng easily fixed by adding one non-controversial sentence, the one I've been saying. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK... but would you say that they do address the core issue to some extent? Would you accept this proposal on the grounds that it moves us in the right direction, or object to it on the grounds that it does not go far enough for you? Blueboar (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, all that I'm asking is to include the sentence: " "Not truth" in this policy means that truth is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." somewhere in the first two paragraphs.  I think that we should consider that rather than asking for a final acceptance/rejection from me of a proposal without it.  North8000 (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC){

Which does NOTHING to fix the problems that sparked this whole debate in the first place.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the proposal or my idea? I believe that my idea goes right to the heart of what mostly started this in the first place. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * North... I did not mean to lock you into a final acceptance/rejection... I was merely trying to find out if you could accept this as is... or not. It is understood that you would strongly prefer a proposal with your suggested sentence added. Blueboar (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I didn't mean to imply that you were doing that, I just meant that at this point it would be better to discuss the idea then essentially go to what is essentially a "what if" question.  But, to answer your question,  I am most concerned with reducing the invented unintended meanings of "not truth". With that in mind, I would call this proposal a non-optimal step forward, and would support it as such. I'm getting confused.  What I'm viewing as a part of the new proposal ("not a guarantee")  is already in, recently added. So now, comparing the new proposal with the policy as it it written today, It is clearly a small step forward and I'd support it.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that other meanings of "not truth" are not "invented" but rather taken straight from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definitions of "truth": "the state of being the case : fact (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : actuality". --BruceGrubb (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No argument there. That's not the "invented" meanings I was talking about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Tryptofish's version - arbitrary break
So, can we clarify which wording is under discussion at the moment? Here is Andrew Lancaster's most recent proposal with my proposed addition ("do not remove verifiable content..."). Is this a basis for discussion?

Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a small problem with... "and do not remove verifiable content for the sole reason that you believe it to be untrue" I understand and agree with what this says, but I can easily see how it could be misinterpreted.  Yes, we should not remove verifiable material for the sole reason that we believe it to be untrue... but... this does not mean we can not (or should not) remove untrue verifiable material.  The key is that we need to base our removal on something more than simple truth/untruth and on a policy statement other than WP:V (such as WP:RS, or WP:UNDUE).  (this is part of what the "not a guarantee" phrasing is trying to point out).  I am thinking that my concerns could be resolved if we bolded the word "sole".
 * Another possibility is to break this up into two paragraphs... the first paragraphs would deal with adding unverifiable information (don't... even if true). The second paragraph would deal with removing verifiable information (you sometimes can... but the rational for doing so should not be based on WP:V). Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I did actually think of italicising "sole", then decided against it. I would be quite happy with italicising or bolding it, since it is intended to be a key-word. I wouldn't favour breaking it into two paragraphs, since we're presumably trying to write a first paragraph here. Also, your suggested wording does not make sense: someone who removed content "because it is untrue" would not be using a rationale based on WP:V. Scolaire (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Somewhat like Blueboar, I see this change as two parts: 1) a less substantive part that involves what words to use to express the ideas of the present version of policy and 2) a more difficult part that briefly discusses requirements for excluding verifiable material.
 * For the first part, here are the changes to the above suggestion of Andrew Lancaster's that I would suggest.


 * The result would be,


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * And how would you deal with the second part: deletion of content? Scolaire (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's more complicated and I would defer it for now. Suggest doing one thing at a time for a better chance of acceptance. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue here is one of scope. I think it obvious that the flip side of "Do not add unverifiable material (even if it is true)" is: "Unverifiable material may be removed (regardless of truth/untruth)".  The policy should state both clearly (and, I think in separate sentences, if not separate paragraphs).  As for the issue of removing verifiable material... that is not within the scope of this policy.
 * This policy should say that it is OK to remove unverifiable material (with the caution that we are talking about unverifiable material, and not material that is merely unverified)... and I think it should mention that there are other policies and guidelines that discuss situations when it is appropriate/inappropriate to remove verifiable material, however those situations are not within the scope of this policy. We hint at this with the "not a guarantee" statement. Perhaps we need to make the point more explicitly.  My point is... the issue of removing verifiable but untrue material falls within the scope of these other policies/guidelines, and not within the scope of this policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, and this is very important. WP:Verifiability sets a requirement for inclusion, it does not and should not weigh in on the side of inclusion.  Some of the above drafts that try to wade into that would create real messes.  For example think about what saying not to remove verifiable material because it is false essentially says:  "never remove an error from Wikipedia if the error is sourcable"  ! ! North8000 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Truth vs belief
Instead of "Verifiability not truth" why not have "Verifiability not belief"? This would eliminate the whole truth defined as fact or accuracy silliness we have seen.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I imagine that people who think have the "truth" on their side wouldn't consider it a mere belief, and thus they wouldn't think the clause applied to them. N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  06:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, quite a bit of the problematical material may actually be the truth, but if we cannot verify its truthfulness, it is of little use to Wikipedia. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly... The reason why "truth" is mentioned in this policy is to make (an important) cautionary statement in support the concept of verifiability. It is intended to make it clear that there is no place for unverifiable material in Wikipedia - even if the material is 100% true - Such material should not be added (even if true)... and, if added, it should be removed (even if true).   That's it...Period... End of reason to discuss "truth" in this policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the incidences of "not truth" passing through the WP:POLICY filtering process are almost negligible and pale in comparison to the incidences of "dogma" that make it through the WP:POLICY gate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Um... Jake, could you please clarify? I don't understand what you just said. Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A simple point really. POV pushing is already pervasive in this project and will be, IMHO, exacerbated by ANY diminution of VnT...which, bottom line, represents the ultimate thrust of this current endeavor...but you've heard that before already. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * POV pushing also is enabled by VnT. Why not reword the principle to say what we really mean? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because T=VnT IS "what we really mean" and has, IMHO, provided the bedrock foundation for whatever success this project has thus far attained. It's the exceptions (if there are any in this vast WP universe) that prove the effectiveness of the rule and tinkering with the "good enuf" (maybe "great enuf"?) without COMPELLING evidence of some systemic "problem" is fool's play...or maybe something else entirely (see section below). JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

reliable source, but unreliable claim
What is to be done in a situation where an author/book is most reliable, but some of the statements in the book by the author can be shown to be false? Should those addition be included? An example, Steve Oney concerning the Leo Frank Case claims there are photographs of teeth/bitemarks on Mary Phagan, but none ever existed. His source for this claim is an unreliable source (discussion on Leo Frank). It doesn't invalidate his book, but the claim in his book has been disproven.Carmelmount (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That depends on how many other reliable sources you have on this topic. If there are 10+ sources which claim there are no such photographs and only 1 source which claims otherwise you can just leave it out, but if there are only 2-3 sources total you should use something along the lines of "According to source A there are pictures with teethmarks, but sources B and C dispute this and say...". This is covered in the policy under wp:UNDUE. Yoenit (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are four sources mentioned in the discussion that support the existence of the photographs and NONE that question it. Carmelmount has been asked on several occasions to provide a reliable source to back up his claims and has failed to do so. This is purely OR by Carmelmount. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Carmelmount, Could you give the excerpt from the Wikipedia article Leo Frank that you would like to exclude? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentences in question are:


 * The state's files on the case were lost and with them the opportunity to apply modern forensic techniques, such as comparing Frank's dental records with photographs of bite marks on Phagan's body. It concluded that, "After exhaustive review and many hours of deliberation, it is impossible to decide conclusively the guilt or innocence of Leo. M. Frank. For the board to grant a pardon, the innocence of the subject must be shown conclusively."[68]


 * The non-existence of the bites is not mentioned in any reliable source that has been raised in the discussion or that I am aware of. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that Yoenit is correct... you should look to WP:UNDUE to resolve the issue. That said, I do have a question: is the underlying issue one of fact (the photographs in question do not physically exist at all) or is it more a question of interpretation (the photographs exist, but there is a question as to whether they show teeth marks). This can affect the determination of how much weight to give the claim. A link to the article in question would help. Based on the quote you provided this is not clear.  Blueboar (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue is about Leo Frank authors quoting a journalist named Pierre Van Paasen, 'To Number Our Days' (1964) who fabricated evidence that in 1922 he found in the Fulton county court house, records of the Leo Frank trial containing a shief that had x-ray photographs of Mary Phagan teeth marks on her neck and shoulder, and corresponding xrays/photos of Leo Frank's mouth showing they didn't match the teeth marks on Mary Phagan. No photos of Leo Franks mouth and No teethmarks were ever reported on Mary Phagan by the undertaker at PJ Bloomfields, Dr. Harris autopsy report (May 5, 1913), during the Coroners inquest, grand jury proceedings, trial brief of evidence, appeals, commutation order or anything concerning Leo Frank before 1964. Nothing is ever mentioned about it in any newspapers at the time. Nothing is mentioned about this in any Leo Frank books or articles before 1964. In fact Pierre Van Paasen when talking about Leo Frank said he was forced into a head on collision while driving his car, his car was demolished, but he escaped without a scratch.Carmelmount (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Van Paassen is treated as credible by the major reliable sources used in the wikipedia article. No reliable sources question Van Paassen. You have repeatedly been asked to provide reliable secondary sources to support your claims, but all you have produced is your original research and your own interpretation of primary sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Islamophobia current example of VnT nonsense
IMHO some of the current comments on Talk:Islamophobia are yet another example of the it Verifiable so accuracy be damned seen previously with the Knight reference in conspiracy theory and more so.

The referenced passage in [Islamophobia is

Islamophobia describes prejudice against, hatred or irrational fear of Islam or Muslims[1][2] The term dates back to the late 1980s or early 1990s,[3] but came into common usage after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.[4]

[3] Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All, Runnymede Trust, 1997, p. 1, cited in Quraishi, Muzammil. Muslims and Crime: A Comparative Study, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005, p. 60; Annan, Kofi. "Secretary-General, addressing headquarters seminar on confronting Islamophobia", United Nations press release, December 7, 2004.

As with the term conspiracy theory we are seeing the arguments about keeping the referenced passage in because there is no evidence that any earlier occurrence are using it a particular way when that is NOT what the referenced passage even says.

As if that wasn't bad enough the cited Secretary-General, addressing headquarters seminar on confronting Islamophobia paper does not say what is being cited. What it actually states and I quote "Such is the case with Islamophobia. The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the phenomenon dates back centuries."

"The word SEEMS to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s"

This is not mentioning that unless the Secretary General is an expert in anthropology or linguistics I can't see how he qualified for Verifiability regarding such matters in the first place. Or the fact I have shown with cross referencing that the term "Islamophobia" appeared in English as early as 1924:

"Certain writers in particular are blamed for their ‘ Islamophobia ‘. Mohammed, our authors complain, is called an epileptic, a charlatan, one suffering from hysteria, a socialist obsessed with the idea of an impending judgement. In reality he was a socialiste religieux." (Journal of theological studies 1924 Vol.26, p.102.

[Sukarno: An Autobiography] published in 1965 clearly states "Leftophobia, the disease of dreading leftist ideas, is a sickness I dread as much as Islamophobia." So it can be shown beyond an doubt the term existed at least as far back as 1965.

So here again in January 2012 we have an example of editors arguing for the retention of a reference that can be shown to be factually wrong and unlike Knight's in conspiracy theory doesn't even say what it is being used to referenced and there are questions where it even meets Verifiability in the first place.

Personally, I think even with words like sadism, sabotage, or silhouette editors should refrain from putting in "was first used" in such articles. Experts can miss earlier (and possibly obscurer uses of a word or term) and such things don't really add much to the article in question. Also in the interest of NPOV if we are talking about a term then we should talk about its entire history and not just on how it is used now.

If VnT is resulting in this kind of nonsense then it needs to be put out of the community's misery.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * From what I saw of the discussion at Talk:Islamophobia, VnT or WP:V wasn't mentioned but rather it was a debate regarding possible OR that was being used as a reason to change the passage at issue.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is arguing for retention of what reference? No-one there has even mentioned WP:V, much less VnT, and the only thing I can see that is "factually wrong" is your description of the discussion on that article's Talk: page. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 14:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup... The concerns raised there have nothing to do with VnT (or even WP:V)... its another case where "there areother policies and guidelines that can affect inclusion." Blueboar (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Take a look at some of the comments:
 * "But even if you traced it back to the Middle Ages, the fact remains that no one commonly used the term until the last decade or so." Which doesn't actually address the problem with the "term dates back to the late 1980s or early 1990s" passage as it say NOTHING about the word coming into common usage only that it dates back to a certain period. In fact, if the term could be "traced it back to the Middle Ages" with a source backing that up then the original statement would be WRONG.  The fact that the term does appear at least as early as 1965 if not even earlier is being ignored.
 * "Not only that, but it's unclear what the meaning of the word is in that context. You can't really tell from a snippet view." Which again does NOT address the problem of a term existing before the period being presented.


 * In fact the article itself states "One early use cited as the term's first use is by the painter Alphonse Étienne Dinet and Algerian intellectual Sliman ben Ibrahim in their 1918 biography of Islam's prophet Muhammad" with two references to back that up. So if the term first use was in 1918 then it certainly not date only back to the late 1980's.  This is simple logic, people.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

VnT counter-proposal
Since some people find the existing wording unclear, maybe those believing in VnT should consider a rewrite that maintains and clarifies the principle. I would rewrite the lead section something like this:


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia neither checks editors' credentials nor permits original research, so the only valid means by which we can collectively arrive at the truth is through the citation of source material.  All material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question.  For facts in dispute the weight given to sources from each point of view reflects the balance of reliable sources, and material should neither be included nor excluded based on personal opinion.


 * In practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy 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. Policy permits the correction of unambiguous errors, such as typographical errors.  In such cases it is sometimes best to describe the situation briefly within the reference tag or in a separate footnote.  When sources are contradictory, controversial, or questionable, it is often best to report that a specified source published a statement rather than to word it as a bald assertion of fact.


 * While verifiability is needed for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy and exclude certain types of information.  Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. The core policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three.


 * This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.


 * For help on adding citations, see Citing sources.

As you see I've added just a bit there, presenting the idea of weighting sources as related to VnT, and linking to IAR to remind that while the VnT policy may be a uniform, it is not a straightjacket. Wnt (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I generally like this. There are a number of proposals that have been floated and I would rather not view this as an either/or process meaning, if some people prefer elements from previous proposals, perhaps they could be incorporated into this, or perhaps parts of this can be incorporated into other proposals. But on balance, I like this a lot. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the first paragraph seems to me to retain most of the problems with this policy (in the first sentence) and introduce new ones to boot. The second and fourth sentences are crossing into territory properly covered by WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and they grossly oversimplify them; I would strongly oppose the addition of sentences #2 and #4.  I also don't like moving the "guarantee of inclusion" clause to the third paragraph; I feel it should be squarely front and centre.  Sorry to be negative— S Marshall  T/C 11:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

When sources are contradictory, controversial, or questionable, it is often best imperative to report demonstrate by qualification and/or attribution that a specified source published a statement rather than to word it such content as a(n) bald assertion of fact in "Wikipedia's voice".

Just my .02 as better reflecting current WP:NPOV JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A good stab but given the nonsensical interpretation of "(the) view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,..." (Bromiley, Geoffrey William (1988) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J; Eerdmans; Page 1034) seen in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition not enough. As demonstrated by that nonsense editors will unknowingly read their own views into passages based on other material they have read and cite what they think the passage says rather than what it actually says.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think that any changes to this policy will solve this problem. This does not man I objct to changes in the policy, I have suggested several changes I would wish to see. But articles are written by editors, not by policies, and no matter ht our policies say the quality of an article depends on there being a critical mass of editors who are either well-informed or know how to, and are willing to, do the necessary research.  Your "nonsense editors" who read their own views into passages were already violating NPOV and NOR, policy already covers what they were doing.  The reason why such articles are plagued by "nonsense editors" who do this is not because "policies let them," it is becausae "wiki technology lets them." As long as this is a Wikipedia rather than Nupedia or EB, that is, as long as the guiding principle is that anyone can edit at any time, there will be "nonsense editors." In articles that very few editors care about, nonsense editors have a disproportionately disruptive effect (this is a kind of sampling error if you like).  The only effective solution to this problem (short of eliminating the wiki technology or regulating it in effect becoming just like Nupedia) is to get a larger group of editors, with a greater range of prejudices and expertise and research skills, involved in writing the article.  Articles can be on highly controversial topics that atract passionate POV-pushers but if these same articles have a dozen or twenty editors actively working on it, it is usually not hard to reach a stable NPOV and well-researched version.  Of course, there will still be arguments - I just man that after a couple of weeks of arguing twenty editors can produce a very good artciel, whereas three or four or five articles will just keep going in circles.  Bruce, if you want to avoid weeks of arguing with silly people, the only alternative is to be the single author of an article which you submit to a peer-reviewed journal.  But we cannot have it both ways - have an encyclopedia anyone can edit, but where noone argues with me when I make points any well-informed scholar in my field would consider obvious and non-controversial.  I think BruceGrubb is really complaining about this being a Wikipedia, not this specific policy. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I realize this is Wikipedia but we must realize is bad or poorly worded instructions can allow a lot of nonsense. I still remember when "directly and expressly" was a part of WP:V and the pluses and minuses of that particular phrase--clearly the community felt the bad outwayed the good and nuked that phrase from the policy.  I say the same should be done with "Verifiability not truth" as it is being far to often being read as "Verifiability not fact" or "Verifiability not accuracy" rather than "Verifiability not belief"; turning this whole place into a big joke.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This proposal is going the wrong direction, we also arrive at truth, such as in the case of Dewey defeats Truman, by quoting the existence of statements generally believed to be untrue.  We also, as per WP:DUE, arrive at truth by not saying things that are WP:V verifiable&mdash;such as the spellings "Patterson" and "Paterson" as further explained at WP:Inaccuracy.  In general, the less said about truth in this policy, the better.  There are better places than WP:V to discuss truth.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. The policy should stick to requiring verifiability.  Clarifying that "not truth" means ONLY to reinforce that will make that finally actually happen. North8000 (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This doesn't really work for me, either. In particular, I don't think that we actually trying to "arrive at the truth".  I think we're trying to arrive at a summary of what reliable sources currently say, even if we learn later that the sources were all wrong (e.g., due to new scientific discoveries).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that in most cases, what we're trying to arrive at is a summary of the mainstream academic consensus on a given topic. I also think that encyclopaedia writers are educators and I find something a bit scary about an educator who isn't trying to tell the truth.  Because there are people who believe what they read on Wikipedia, I think it is incumbent on us to try to remove falsehoods from our content where possible, which means that truth is a meaningful and relevant concept for Wikipedians.— S Marshall  T/C 20:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I find something a bit scary about an educator who presumes that his current beliefs are actually the truth, rather than just his current beliefs.
 * For example, we should stop claiming that a diet high in saturated fats causes heart disease when the reliable sources stop making that claim, and not one day sooner—even though I personally believe that this claim is technically false, and even though I believe that within our lifetimes, that particular bit of dietary "truth" is going to be repudiated by the reliable sources. It's our job to reflect the reliable sources.  It is not our job to reflect the beliefs of editors.  When you put "reliable sources" on one side of the scale and "some editor says" on the other side, the DUE weight always favors the reliable sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On that "fat" point, the "reliable" sources are not not that reliable, they are just repeating "faith based" statements (with no scientific basis) that those fats are bad. Just as for decades a similar faith-based statement (that it's good to eat lots of complex carbs....base of the previous food pyramid) was widely accepted. Maybe we have to require reliable sources that are more reliable. :-) North8000 (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: When you put "reliable sources" on one side of the scale and "some editor says" on the other side, the DUE weight always favors the reliable sources. "Always" is a very strong word, susceptible to one counterexample, and it's not difficult to find an error in what Wikipedia calls a reliable source. How about Talk:Bože pravde?— S Marshall T/C 23:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources disagree, you should be using your best editorial judgment to figure out whether one's wrong (as compared to all the other sources, not according to you; typos happen) or there's actual disagreement between experts or it's so confusing and unimportant that it's time to exercise some WP:Editorial discretion and leave the whole thing out. But your personal belief about what's correct is simply irrelevant.  You may not include your own experience/belief/preferred translation, especially if all of the published, reliable sources disagree with you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I see opinion statements phrased as assertions and indeed direct orders, but I see absolutely no reasoning there whatsoever.— S Marshall T/C 19:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The substance of VnT
IMO, it should be made more clear to what extent the disagreement is just about the best way to verbally express a principle of appropriate practice, and to what extent it is about what the principle of appropriate practice itself should be. The risk is that, under the guise of changing the outward formulation, the principle itself ends up being changed or obscured. As far as I can see, VnT means two things:

1. First, you can't insist on including something that isn't sourced, just because [you think] it's true. 2. Second, you can't insist on excluding something that is sourced, just because [you think] it's false.

So the question is - how many of the people who want to get rid of VnT want it because they are opposed to one or both of these statements? From the discussions I definitely have the impression that at least some are, and I also think that at least some of the actual proposals for change have tended towards obscuring or removing at least statement 2. To me, being opposed to either of these statements means being in favour of OR, and it really doesn't make sense to be opposed to one, but not to the other. This would be, then, a much more profound disagreement than just whether we should have a somewhat provocative and paradoxic-sounding phrase in the lede or not - really, a disagreement about whether this is an encyclopedia based on attribution to verifiable sources or one based on personal knowledge and authority. But I think it is important to make people's stances on the issue clear. --Anonymous44 (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what you mean by "just because [you think] it's true "? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Is is the parentheses that puzzle you? They basically mean that "just because it's true" = "just because you think it's true". That is, the meaning of the clause in practice remains the same regardless of whether you add "you think" or not - what is true is a matter of opinion. --Anonymous44 (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake. I meant the second one. The first one seems fine. The ending of the first one is OK because there is the premise that the true material isn't sourced.


 * I meant that the ending of the second one needs explaining. The second one is more complicated because, for example, the reason for the sourced material  being false might be backed up with reliable sources and may be  clear to all editors involved. Did the word "just" in the second one, i.e. "just because [you think] it's false",  mean that  it was claimed to be false for no good reason?    --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What about verifiable material that is known to be false, e.g., due to journalistic sloppiness? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, who knows it's false? Other verifiable reliable sources, not us. We just cite the other verifiable reliable sources, and if they predominate, then we remove the false material per WP:Undue Weight.--Anonymous44 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe in the ideal case, but not in my experience. There's a big argument, and inevitably someone cites the toxic triad as justification for including the version they prefer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "The toxic triad"? What does that mean? Look, the point is, we don't get to decide what's true or false. The moment we get to do that, we're s****ed. "We" are nobody, or anybody, we are not experts (and even if some are, Wikipedia has no mechanism of checking that or of limiting editing rights to experts). That's why we have WP:V and WP:NOR, that's why this is Wikipedia and not Citizendium.--Anonymous44 (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The toxic triad is VnT. Are you aware of the Sam Blacketer controversy? It is a nice example where the newspapers got everything wrong and we had an article which completely verifiable, totally wrong and a BLP nightmare. Yoenit (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)]
 * That's an extremely, extremely rare case in which we can all plainly see what the truth is (while most non-Wikipedians can't, hence the false reporting) - because it's an article about Wikipedia. It's not a reason to destroy the basic principle of Wikipedia and to allow people to delete information/theory A, B, C on their personal discretion. In the Sam Blacketer case, I don't think the sourced claims needed to be removed; instead, one should have included the diffs as primary sources with an objective explanation of their contents (without explicitly denying the truth of the newspaper reporting), and the readers would be able to make their conclusions. For every case like this, there are about 100 000 where pure, unjustified original research is done, often to advance a POV, and VnT gets in the way. --Anonymous44 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Yoenit. I think Anonymous44 doesn't think we can trust Wikipedians to make judgment calls about what's true or false, so he thinks we should include everything sourced. The problem is that you don't get to a reliable article by taking an average of all the sources. Likewise, you don't get to a NPOV article by taking an average of all the POVs in all the sources. Enforcing "we don't get to decide what's true or false" might be okay for stubs and start-class and even B-class articles, in many topics, but you don't get to GA (let alone FA) without some editorial judgment calls, which in the right circumstances can and do include deciding what's accurate and what's bunk.— S Marshall T/C 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so things are clearer now. Not only are you opposed to WP:NOR, but you're also against WP:Undue Weight. Instead, readers are supposed to rely on the authority of one S Marshall, or one IP NNNNNN, who happens to be in possession of The Truth and knows how to create an excellent article based on that knowledge. What do we need sourcing for, when we have you? My only worry is - what do we do, when we get several such omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent (on Wiki) beings with differing views? I'm afraid that would lead to a conflict of cosmic dimensions.--Anonymous44 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, S. Marshall, North and several others obviously want to decide what is true or not, so VnT is a "toxic trio" of policy against that. Good to know.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? What have I done to deserve such venom from you two?  My position is that I favour talk page discussion in which editors decide and agree how much weight to give each source, and after discussion, some sources might not receive a mention.  I've never pretended that I personally should be the arbiter of truth on Wikipedia.— S Marshall  T/C 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not venom bucko, that's merely an add-on to this entire discussion. "Talk page discussion" is no way contrary to VnT. Play it again Sam, but from a more logical position. (which means reading the comment I was responding to)   Dreadstar  ☥   22:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, talk page discussion by itself isn't contrary to VnT. The idea that Wikipedians can have a talk page discussion and reach a consensus to ignore a source because the source is mistaken or lying certainly does run directly contrary to the TT. What the TT says is that we have to include sourced things no matter how blatantly false they are. Also, what's a bucko?— S Marshall  T/C 23:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that wasn’t supposed to be venomous at all, I was attempting to point out what your comments may look like to editors - I meant to explain further, but my power went out.. :) What I mean is that individual editors do not get to decide what is true and what is false, we need to follow the sources. When you make comments about editors deciding whether or not content from a RS is true or not, it makes it look like you do indeed want individual editors to decide truth.  Even comments such as this can be construed that way:  we can trust Wikipedians to make judgment calls about what's true or false". Reliable sources decide what’s true, individual editors do not, again: "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false".  And, where I'm from, "bucko" is just a familiar term of address, sort of combining lad and buckaroo, no insult intended....meant more along the line of "Let's ride, me buckos!!" :)  Dreadstar  ☥   19:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Answering to S Marshall's "Wait, what ... I favour talk page discussion in which editors decide ... I've never pretended that I personally should be the arbiter of truth". Yes, you will have editors decide, but not based on their perception of the prominence of various views out there (per Undue Weight), but rather based on their own alleged "knowledge" of which view is true and what is false. Whether it happens to be you personally, or you and North8000 personally, or me and you personally doesn't change anything (of course, different cliques determining "truth by consensus" will form in each particular case). Sorry for being venomous, it's just irritating to have to explain the most obvious things that should have been clear to everybody here from the start.--Anonymous44 (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anonymous44, it's not obvious at all. Editors have knowledge.  Not alleged "knowledge", but actual, genuine knowledge, acquired through the process of researching and building decent articles as well as living their lives, going to school, and so on.  They also have judgment.  Let's give you a couple of examples.  (1) I can show you an awful lot of reliable sources supporting the statement "Pluto is a planet".  Does that mean I should be able to write "Pluto is a planet" in Pluto?  (2) I can show you printed, published sources that question whether the moon landings ever happened.  Does that mean I should be able to add the word "allegedly" into the first sentence of Apollo program?  Can you see how, in examples like this, VNT plays into the hands of POV-pushers?— S Marshall  T/C 23:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the case of Pluto, there has been a change in the "official" scientific stance relatively recently, hence the old view in the sources. If there is any remaining controversy, it should be mentioned, depending on its prominence. In the case of the moon landings, the conspiracy sources aren't reliable. I can't rely on your knowledge - the editors that will insert the things you mentioned have knowledge, too. We can't compare your relative knowledge, we can't decide which one of you has more knowledge. Sources are the only objective criterion. And this is completely obvious. How do I know you're Mr Competent, and not them? I can't know that. The only objective criterion are the sources. This is a situation that everybody should recognize.--Anonymous44 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm on the side of keeping VnT but with also elaborating what this means in practice. I haven't kept up on the whole debate but has anyone mentioned keeping VnT and then immediately stating that V is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion?  N <sup style="color:red;">o f o rmation  <sup style="color:black;">Talk  23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Noformation, the argument is not simply about whether verifiable material can be excluded, but whether truth should be among the criteria based on which it can be excluded.--Anonymous44 (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Or included. Remember my example of inserting "allegedly" into the first sentence of Apollo program?  Or, here's another example, wanting to mention baraminology under species?  Or to use young earth creationist print sources in History of the Earth?  You've tried to counter that by saying that some sources aren't reliable, but I don't see that as a line of argument that goes very far, because whether or not a source is reliable depends on whether it's written by an expert, edited by an expert, peer-reviewed, fact-checked, published by a reputable journal, and all the other factors that make that source likely to be ... true.  "Reliable source" is just a codeword for "true source", and "unreliable source" is just code for "false source".  Aren't they?— S Marshall  T/C 00:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't think so, reliable source just means a believable source totally without fact verification, like Dewey defeats Truman is a reliable source. Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with S Marshall. On those first two questions, #1 is imprecisely written, but is consistent with and sort of says what wp:ver is about. #2 is written logically poorly, but the gist of it is trying to say that wp:ver sometimes weighs in on the side of inclusion of false sourced material. WP:ver doesn't and shouldn't weigh in on the side of inclusion of material, it just sets A requirement for inclusion.   Saying that it weighs in on the side of inclusion is one of those problematic mis-interpretations that I absolutely want to get rid of (preclude) .  North8000 (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a mis-interpretation of WP:V, that's what the policy actually is and has been for a long time (with VnT), and what you want to change. You are not just avoiding a misinterpretation, you're actively changing policy to allow OR. If we could trust people to decide that a sourced claim is false, then we could also trust people to decide that an unsourced claim is true and we wouldn't need WP:V at all. We can't know that something is either true or false without a reliable source. We are not an encyclopedia written by experts, we are an encyclopedia written by everybody. I have no reason to trust your expertise and lack of bias, nor you mine.--Anonymous44 (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Agree with S Marshall.", Really? What a surprise.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also not exactly amazing to find you opposing us, Dreadstar...— S Marshall T/C 22:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just paying it forward. Or mebbe backward.  I'll let you choose the direction.  :)  Dreadstar  ☥   22:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * To Deadstar and Anonymous44, lets explore this rather than firing volleys.  For the first "piece", please note that I said THIS POLICY doesn't weigh in on the side of inclusion of material, it merely sets A condition for inclusion of material.  Do you disagree with me on that statement?  If so, where does WP:ver say something to that effect? North8000 (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sure shouting "it's a toxic trio" isn't a 'volley'...it's um...well, um... hyperbole, aka a volley? Stop the verbal crap and maybe the volleys will stop from both sides.  This policy does indeed weigh in on "inclusion of material", it is the threshold for inclusion.  Dreadstar  ☥   23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) How about the current first sentence (which you want to change)? You know, "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's a principle that has been in effect for ages, with slightly different wordings, that's what VnT says, and that's why you want to remove it. BY the way, the "weighing in" wording is rather odd. The principle is simply that perceived truth is not relevant. When I say "qualification, not race should be relevant for eligibility for public office", does that mean I'm "weighing in" on the side of election of black people - does it mean only that you can't elect somebody just because he's white, or does it also mean that you can't ban somebody from running just because he's black? It's two sides of the same thing.--Anonymous44 (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you mind clarifying which of the 7 definitions of "threshold" you are referring to? Yoenit (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When I say "competence, not race is the threshold for serving in a public office", it means that A. Nobody who lacks the necessary competence should serve in a public office just because they are of a privileged race; and B. Nobody who has the necessary competence should be prevented from serving in a public office just because they are of an underprivileged race. You want to make both competence and race - both verifiability and perceived truth - be the threshold: the president must be both smart and white.--Anonymous44 (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict, answering previous post. Anonymous44, I had some precise logic in my "weigh in" choice of words, and it refers to using wp:ver in any way as an argument for retention/inclusion of material rather than merely setting a condition for inclusion of material.  I think that you might have inadvertently helped make my point.  Because rather than pointing to where the policy specifically weighs in on the side of INCLUSION of material, you instead gave me your interpretation of the first sentence. North8000 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Anonymous44, my response on your analogy is that shows that you are mixing up policies with other considerations. The basic "policies" regarding president are the laws and the constitution. The person has to be 35 and American born. Any attempt to apply another condition (e.g. prohibit from running or serving based on color of skin or hair) has no basis and would go nowhere. ("Skin color" is further reinforced because discrimination based on race is specifically prohibited by law.) There is no policy about who should be in, after someone meets the basic criteria set by "policy", policy becomes SILENT on that point, leaving it to the voters. This is what the specifics of wp:ver does, other interpretations notwithstanding. Some other policies set additional conditions for inclusion, and one other policy (that I know of) (WP:NPOV) sometimes weighs in on the side of INCLUSION of material. Provided that the specific requirements of the policies are met, as with the "voters", the policies don't dictate what gets in / taken out, leaving it to the editors, consensus, and the rest of the processes that create articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The analogy is approximate, of course, it should have been clear that I never wanted to get into details about US presidents. The point is that when I say that the threshold is competence, not race, that means that race is irrelevant. And, in the same way, when the policy says that the threshold is verifiability, not personal perception of truth, that means that the personal perception of truth is irrelevant. Other policies may set up additional conditions, but "truth" is not one of them and never has been.--Anonymous44 (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think everything is clear by this point. Judging from the responses, the anti-VnT side really is actively trying to make possible a form of OR, namely editors deciding on their own what the truth is in order to delete what they feel contradicts the truth. This is what the proposed changes are about. As Dreadstar said, good to know. I have already expressed what I think this means for Wikipedia, so I will not repeat myself. I will just say - when you are making a revolution, call it a revolution and not just "a change in wording to avoid misunderstandings". This means putting enormous new powers in the hands of editors, allowing the derogatory description of Wikipedia as "truth by consensus" to become true. Thank you all for your explanations. --Anonymous44 (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * As a member of what you call the "anti-VnT" side, I object most strenuously to your assertion that "the anti-VnT side really is actively trying to make possible a form of OR." I will assume that this misrepresentation is not deliberate, and simply ask that you reflect in greater depth on what others have said. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding to previous post. Well, we have boiled it down to where we disagree. We both agree that truth is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. In areas OTHER THAN THAT (e.g. when discussing possibly leaving out sourced material based on falsity) you are (possibly inadvertently) saying that wp:ver forbids assertions of falsity from entering into a conversations about leaving out sourced material. Note that I am ONLY advocating that alleged falsity be allowed to enter into editor conversations, not to dictate the result of those conversations. North8000 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your last post, that is a mis-statement of the conversation. North8000 (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors shouldn't be able to remove reliably sourced material that is true, satisfies all guidelines/policies, is well written, and is appropriate for a given article. But VnT doesn't prohibit that. VnT only prohibits editors from adding unsourced material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One could also say those who don't want editors to have the ability to use editorial discretion for removing known to be false information are "anti-NPOV". ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  06:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest to Anonymous44 to go up and read ʍaunus' comment about how a Verifiable but also demonstrably false statement should have been kept in an article. The key word in that statement was "demonstrably" ie it could be VERIFIED that the statement was WRONG. That is the type of nonsense VnT encourages.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bruce, this whole policy does not hinge on your interpretation of one comment by ʍaunus, despite your continual and obsessive harping on it. Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

We need the operative nuts and bolts level to sort this out and possibly find common ground
This might help. A defining example: A sourced piece of material is in an article and editors are discussing whether to take it out. Several editors are arguing that it should be taken out because it is in error, and making arguments to support that assertion. The question is which of the following is/should be the effect of THIS policy (wp:ver)on that conversation:
 * 1) No effect, given that verifiability has been met. Leave it to OTHER things (other policies, consensus, guidelines, mechanisms etc.) to determine.
 * 2) Give folks a basis to exclude the "in error" argument from the conversation.
 * 3) Assist/empower someone to remove the material because they think that it is false.

Which do you think that this SPECIFIC policy, wp:ver does do if properly read, and which should it do?


 * I think that wp:ver does and should do #1 if properly read. And that #2 is a common misreading of wp:ver.  People are imagining that the pro-change people want #3, but they do not, they want #1, and to keep #2 from happening.  None of the proposed changes does #3, and nobody wants wp:ver to do #3. North8000 (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should just have a large scale RFC asking that question: What does VnT mean, interpretation #1 & #2. I am curious what the result would be. Yoenit (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe a small scale RFC. We're getting worn out :-) North8000 (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But I also think that the analysis might point out some common ground, which is, I think, #1 for the vast majority of people, even thought few have thought of it in these terms. North8000 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think an RFC (whether large or small) on this question would help. Blueboar (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The would be a very fundamental piece of information and clarification. I'm going to tidy it up and re-pose it. I'm still grasping for words on #3.  It refers to when a policy gives someone a "basis for deletion" and a basis more making the deletion stick.  More than just the not-prevent meaning of "allow", and not quite a magic deletion bullet. North8000 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"To me, being opposed to either of these statements means being in favour of OR". I agree, but note that OR is defined in such a ridiculously broad way and verifiability in such a ridiculously narrow way here on Wikipedia, that sometimes presenting correct and verifiable information (i.e. information that in academia would be regarded as correct beyond all reasonable doubt), can still violate the rules on OR, because the steps needed to verify the information, whikle standard practice in academia, would violate Synth.

An example is the brightness of the international space station (ISS). From time to time we have editing disputes on the ISS page, because qyite a few sources say the brightness is magnitude -6. But everyone with sme limited knowledge of astronomy and who is somewhat familiar with the IS, knows for sure that this can't be true and thatthe brighness is approximately -4. That latter statement is not based on any sort of gut feeling, it is completely verifiable, but then we're talking about "real world verifiability", and not the stupid, dumbed down Wikipedia version of this where someone can say that his sources are reliable and they say that the brightness is -6, and I cannot point to a single reliable source that contradicts this, only start long arguments why this isn't true. The real world verifiability involves reading up on the definition of magnitudes from astronomy books so that one can at least have a useful discussion on the talk page. Some time ago an editor actually invoked VnT in an effort to shut down such discussions, citing also OR to protect the statement that the magnitude is -6. Count Iblis (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That is one of the main problems. People invoking VNT to shut down discussions when dealing with erroneous information. Ironically this doesn't come up when dealing with areas when there is a real world dispute about the veracity of the material, because then you have a true wp:npov situation and just cover both sides.  Nor does it come up in non-contentious articles. The editors simply decide to leave out or remove erroneous sourced material. Where it most often comes into play is when the veracity of the material is merely a sidebar to a larger issue.  For example, a personality conflict at the article.   Or where people may want knowingly wrong wrong material in because it makes the "other side" in a real world clash look bad.  North8000 (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to regularize the voting
The interminable discussions attempting to remove "verifiability not truth" from the lede (or the first sentence of the lede) of this policy are very haphazard and time consuming, and involve lengthy, circular and oft-repeated arguments. They tend to engender bad feelings among the participants, and invariably end in votes anyway. Instead, I propose we simply have a monthly vote on moving "verifiability not truth" from the first sentence until those wishing to have it removed succeed. Once that is accomplished, we could then have a monthly vote on removing it from the lede entirely, until those wishing to have it removed succeed again. We could have the monthly vote start on the first of each month and conclude on the 13th - that would give everyone two weeks to prepare for the next vote. We could also keep structured archives of the proceedings, much like the Recent additions pages, which would organize the votes by month and year. Thoughts? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 15:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that focuses us on the wrong thing. IMHO, the discussion shouldn't be about "removing" or "retaining" VnT... it should be about how best to clarify the valid and important policy point that is currently embodied within (and by) the VnT phrasing.  Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But doesn't that raise the issue of if you have to explain in detail what the VnT policy point actually is then the VnT shorthand is in the end more hindrance then help?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) Not necessarily... I think part of the reason we are having so much difficulty reaching a consensus on language is that there is some confusion as to what the policy point actually is (or should be). We need to discuss and reach an agreement on that before we talk about the best way to phrase it.  We should not discuss a result (ie remove/retain VnT) until we are essentially in agreement about the intent of what we currently say.  Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that Jayig meant it sarcastically. Certainly they don't think that that one question covers the items and possible solutions under discussion  or that that approach would be palatable to very many people. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the ultimate goal of all these discussions and regular votes is to remove "verifiability not truth" from the lede, and they will continue to be held until that goal is achieved. I am merely proposing a more orderly, less heated, and less time-consuming way of doing this: I think this will produce the desired end result while freeing up a huge amount of time. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Start with getting it out of the lede sentence, then the lede pararaph, then the lede entirely.
 * 2) Hold regular monthly votes on the matter, lasting two weeks, until each goal is successively achieved.

Same note. I think that Jayig meant it sarcastically. Certainly they don't think that that one question covers the items and possible solutions under discussion or that that approach would be palatable to very many people. Sincerley, North8000 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Or just have a text without VnT on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and on all other days we'll have the VnT version. Count Iblis (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How about a 6 month moritorium? I doubt that I am the only editor who's burned out and dropped out of the discussion a long time ago.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you should resolve this situation a swiftly as possible. I find it disrespectful to solicit massive community input only to ignore it. Next time, please set up a fair RFC with a couple of proposals including the status quo, and tell your committee to determine which one has most support. They should not have the option to bail out with a "no consensus" decision. Vesal (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no problem to solve. No one, after months of debate, can provide a single example of where there is a problem or how changing the wording would help resolve anything, let alone the dozens I would expect to justify such a massive change.  Sorry, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Umm, there is an "under discussion" tag on the opening sentence of this core policy. That's a very bad state of affairs. I have no opinion on "not truth", but we cannot live with the current situation. It needs to be resolved, or at the very least, create an information page saying what is under discussion is not the essence of this policy, only the fine print. Regards, Vesal (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Start with a definition of Verifiability
I want to re-raise a point that I raised a while ago which got lost in the shuffle... This point has nothing to do with the issue of "truth/untruth"... (but it would have an effect on those discussions)

At the moment we open the policy with the words: "The Threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is...". This would be a good opening line for a policy entitled "WP:Threshold for inclusion" ... but I don't think it is the best opening for this policy. I think this policy should open with: "Verifiability is...".

Thoughts? Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, and there's wording at User:S Marshall/V.— S Marshall T/C 17:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure we will all have wording suggestions... but let's go one step at a time... At the moment, all I am asking is: should we start with "Verifiability is..."  Let's get a consensus on that very basic question before we discuss anything else.  Blueboar (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I with you to at least to see where it goes. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be far better than the current wording. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, verifiability is a property of the text, not an ability of readers to verify. You could try something along the lines of "Material added to Wikipedia is said to be verifiable if readers can check that it has already been published by a reliable source." Vesal (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Even more strictly speaking, it is the information, not the material, that is verifiable. Sorry to nitpick. --FormerIP (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * that might be fine, as a second or third sentence, but not as the first sentence. My point is that I think we should start off with a simple statement telling readers what Verifiability is, ie how that term is defined on Wikipedia (which, is a bit different than the simple dictionary definition).  Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Such as "Verifiability is the confirmation of statements on Wikipedia by reliable sources."? ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  01:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Verifiability comes from the latin root Veritas, meaning "truth". Verifiability means that one can confirm the truthfulness of a statement.  It doesn't mean merely that the statement is true, it means that one can confirm that the statement is true.  Any definition of verifiability that ignores the meaning of the "veri-" stem is ignoring a core portion of the definition.  If you mean something else, find another word to name the concept.  But as long as you are going to use the word Verifiability, you need to include that part of its meaning, or people will keep getting it wrong (and it cannot be emphasized enough that merely being true is not enough, however, it must still be true to be verifiable, by definition).  -- Jayron  32  01:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again... lets take this one step at a time... all I am asking is: are you in favor of starting with "Verifiability is... "? (ie we can debate how to define it if we reach a consensus as to whether to start with a definition). Blueboar (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea and have taken a stab at it:


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


 * Verifiability for wikipedia is that a piece of information in the mainspace (articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions) is attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question and is the first requirement that must be met for possible inclusion.

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.

Verifiability is all about the ability to reference a piece information to a reliable source--nothing more nothing less. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, verifiable material may be excluded under WP:DUE, WP:NOTWP:COPYVIO, and Inaccuracy.

Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.
 * }


 * It's a rough draft so feel free to mess with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support the proposal that the policy should begin with "Verifiability is..." To BruceGrubb, I would echo Blueboar: lets take this one step at a time. Scolaire (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes Defining verifiability for the first sentence is a Good Thing. -- Jayron  32  19:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed wording on snippet and abstract links in citations
Help talk:Citation Style 1 is discussing something – guidance about linking to snippet views and abstracts – that would eventually need to be integrated into WP:MOS if acted upon, and probably also be mentioned at WP:V and/or WP:RS, as well as WP:CITE. The parent thread above it provides some background, but may be "TLDR" for some. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 00:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

First para of lead
I've made a copyedit – see – which I hope most of us can agree does a better job of explaining what we mean by "verifiability not truth". -- J N  466  19:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I reverted it with the edit summary, "moves explanation of 'verifiability' farther from the beginning and puts 'true' discussion first; bloated and inappropriate tone, e.g. 'your job' " Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is the wording "not whether editors think it is true" that you restored. The original and intended meaning of this phrase relates to unsourced facts. It means, "You may say you know something that you wish to add to Wikipedia for a fact, but that is not enough. Some reliable source must have published it before you -- your writing it into Wikipedia should not be the first time this has been published."
 * But the way it is currently phrased and positioned, it can be read to mean something completely different, i.e. something related to sourced content. That completely different meaning is: "Your being able to prove that a normally reliable source got something dead-wrong means diddlysquat to us in Wikipedia. We should not judge truth, and as long as something added is verifiable it stays in Wikipedia." While the former interpretation is (almost) always correct, the latter interpretation is quite often wrong, as can be seen from the perusal of any day's discussions at WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. It needs to be fixed. Regards. -- J N  466  03:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment regarding reliably sourced "dead-wrong" material applies just as well to the "not truth" phrase that remained after your edit. For example, see the first message in the section The substance of VnT, where there seems to be that misinterpretation of VnT, "2. Second, you can't insist on excluding something that is sourced, just because [you think] it's false. " I think we agree on your basic point. I just think it isn't easy to address. We would want to exclude dead-wrong material, but not material that some editor says is wrong using OR but isn't dead-wrong. That's the difficulty. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The best approach is to say nothing here about how to deal with unreliable sourced material, because as you say it's far too complex an issue to be dealt with in a one-sentence slogan. But it's not what WP:V is about anyway, so why reinvent the wheel? We have other, more nuanced and mature policies and guidelines that address situations where editors disagree with sources (WP:NPOV, WP:IRS, WP:MEDRS, WP:BLP, WP:REDFLAG, etc.), and that provide detailed guidance as to where sources should prevail over editor disagreement (e.g. WP:NPOV issues), and where editor assessment should prevail over the source (e.g. WP:MEDRS, WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:REDFLAG). So we shouldn't get into that issue at all here, in the first paragraph of this policy. Instead we should make absolutely clear what "not truth" means: that people shouldn't add material to Wikipedia that has never been published before – because even if such material is true, it is unverifiable for the reader, and the presence of unverifiable material undermines confidence in Wikipedia. So truth isn't enough. (There are IAR exceptions even to that rule, such as a subject correcting a wrong birthdate via OTRS, but those exceptions are extremely rare.) If you look at the wording I had, it made clear that "not truth" relates to unsourced (and unsourceable) material. It also made clear that things are only verifiable if their publication in a reliable source predates their appearance in Wikipedia (otherwise it's citogenesis). By all means, do fix the diction to something you feel is more appropriate. Cheers, -- J N  466  08:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Would the simple change of substituting "unsourced material" for "it" in the existing phrase accomplish what you want, i.e. change to "not whether editors think unsourced material is true"? The whole first sentence would then look like this:
 * 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 unsourced material is true.
 * Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant idea. I don't know why that didn't occur to me, but that fixes it. -- J N  466  18:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've lost track of the many proposals, but what you just said I think covers the core of the main open issue. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I propose to add the following sentence as the second sentence:
 * "Not truth" in this policy means that truth is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement.
 * I think that this would probably 80% actually resolve the issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Footnote 7
Currently in the section Exceptional claims require exceptional sources there is footnote 7. Please comment on whether you think all, or any of it is worthwhile. Here it is:

7. Editors should avoid including exceptional claims that are not supported by multiple reliable sources.
 * Hume, David. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, Forgotten Books, 1984; first published 1748, p. 86: "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior."
 * Christopher Hitchens, God is not great, Twelve Books, Hachette Book Group, 2007, p. 26/50: "If one must have faith to believe in something, then the likelihood of that something having truth or value is considerably diminished... Having no reliable or consistent witnesses, in anything like the time period needed to certify such an extraordinary claim, we are finally entitled to say that we have a right, if not an obligation, to respect ourselves enough to disbelieve the whole thing. That is, unless or until superior evidence is presented, which it has not been. And exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence."
 * Gregory Konesky Apparent biotic micromorphologies of abiotic origin, proceedings of the SPIE, Volume 6694, 2007, pp. 66941A: "Often, micromorphologies, interpreted as microfossils, provide the first clues to exciting and potentially controversial discoveries related to the early origins of life on the Earth, as well as the potential for life on other planets. It has been said, however, that exceptional claims require exceptional proof..."
 * John R. Hutchinson & Vivian Allen, Were there four-winged dinosaurs?, Springer-Verlag, 2008, p. 15: "...The palaeobiological mantra ‘exceptional claims require exceptional evidence’ certainly applies here."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd keep Hume and drop the rest, which is flotsam and jetsam. -- J N  466  08:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the rest isn't worthwhile. The rest was introduced in a recent edit so I'll revert back to the long standing version. If anyone wants to restore any of the reverted material  they should get consensus first. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Bob, Jayen, the rest was introduced by me. I've no issues with the portion being deleted... Wifione  Message 03:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I enjoyed the paper about the four-winged dinosaur. :) -- J N  466  01:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No kidding :) It took me a half hour to find the stuff out. But no issues with the removal. See you around. Wifione  Message 04:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Support comments of previous large RfC re first sentence
In a discussion on Jimbo's talk page, one of the closers of the large RfC re the first sentence made the following comment, "As one of the closing admins, I did look at the numbers first of all and thought it was a clear situation. Indeed, when I first saw HJ's conclusions, I voiced my concern that a no consensus was not the right decision. But after reading the votes - a very large proportion of the supporters either supported with provisos or stated that they didn't like it, but vaguely preferred it to what we currently have." (diff for this comment and link to whole section of Jimbo's talk page that contains this comment)

So I decided to check this and went through all of the support votes. The following tables divide the 276 support votes into three categories: 1) Definite support,  225;    2) Support and wanting more change, 26;    3) Support with reservations, 25. (Feel free to check or spot check the tables.) This result shows that the comment of the closing administrator is not true regarding, "a very large proportion of the supporters either supported with provisos or stated that they didn't like it, but vaguely preferred it to what we currently have."

The following 3 tables divide the 276 support comments into 3 categories of 225, 26 and 25 respectively. The last column on the right of each table has cumulative totals for that table.

1) Definite support:

2) Support and wanting more change:

3) Support with reservations:

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Two questions.
 * 1) You are impugning the judgement of a closer. Have you directed that person here?
 * 2) Why are you posting this here and not in the venue designated to entertain appeals of an RfC determination. Is this a trial balloon? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re 1. These tables and my remark that the closing admin's comment was not true were made when the admin's comment was made at Jimbo's page. The admin did not respond. Here's a repeat of the link to the whole section of Jimbo's talk page that contains this. Feel free to notify the admin of this repeat of my previous comment about that statement.
 * Re 2. I am posting this for its informative value and for discussion.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The RFC result was pretty unsatisfactory, in that a 1.85:1 majority was deemed not to constitute a consensus. Since higher majorities than that are prohibitively rare in widescale RFCs, what this does in practice is to crystallise our current policy wording.  Policies are unchangeable via RFC, and any user who doesn't like a change can force an RFC, and any user who doesn't like an RFC result can unilaterally overturn it and expand it to a larger RFC.  But JakeInJoisey's rather bristling reply does raise an unfortunate point, which is that a "no consensus" triumvirate close is unchallengeable in practice and the consensus re-engineering manoeuvres used during the RFC have therefore completely succeeded.  It stinks but there is absolutely nothing to be done about it.— S Marshall  T/C 17:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One could make up new rules when the result is not to one's satisfaction, as happened after the first close. Like "This should have run 2 months and needed a 5 admin close".    But the result of it is that we have seen that that particular "construction" (must be "consensus" + large scale RFC + 1.85:1 is not a consensus etc.) is absolutely, completely dysfunctional as a process for making a change; some other decision mechanism must be used. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed I highly doubt that consensus for anything other than obvious grammatical errors being corrected would ever come one way or the other and the result is status quo in both crystallizing policy and endless arguments on the talk pages because there is a clear majority who want change. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  18:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Bob... your analysis is helpful, and interesting. Thanks for doing it. If you feel up to it, it would also be interesting to see a similar analysis and break down of the Opposed comments. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks for doing that, and the same for opposers would be very helpful, but I realize that it's a lot of work /lot to ask. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I will echo North's thanks for the effort, but also for a truly unbiased breakdown, the same should ultimately be done for those who oppose (in theory those who voted neutral, but there are so few it might not be nessasary). ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  20:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Time stamp to delay bot archiving. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Boldly substituting a dictionary equivalency
I apologize for making a bold edit to the lead on a policy that has such a fractious environment, but I've just explained the difference between verifiable and verified for approximately the three jillionth time, and my patience is wearing a little thin on that point.

I'm sure that we can all agree that the word attributable actually means "possible to attribute" and that therefore this change does not affect the meaning of the sentence. I hope you will also agree with me that sloppy readers (i.e., those who don't notice the last few letters of the word or realize that the suffix is meaningful) are more likely to understand the spelled-out definition than the polysyllabic original term. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (linked the abovementioned edit)
 * I suspect that WAID has introduced an improvement here, though I would still be concerned. This new version seems somehow (and this may be just my reading) to imply that an editor, rather than a reader, must have the ability to verify. I don't believe that should be the intent that the policy implies. Can we find a better phrasing? LeadSongDog come howl!  18:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I must agree with LeadSongDog that it could be read that way and should be worded better.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If the current version can be read that way, then the previous version can equally be read that way.
 * Personally, I don't think we need to distinguish between readers and editors here: what matters is that someone can figure out whether the material has been published previously, and that we don't limit that someone's methods to "by clicking on a little blue number at the end of the paragraph".  After all, readers know how Mr Google works, too, and we have never had a requirement that every single bit of material be supported by an inline citation (only four types of material, as listed at WP:MINREF).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify: My primary point isn't that LSD's concern shouldn't be addressed.  Having less confusion about the gap between the actual minimum requirements for inline citations and the best practice (which significantly exceeds the bare minimums) would be desirable, but that this concern is unrelated to the change I made, and so—like the many other ways that we could improve this page—deserves to be handled separately.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The change puts the meaning of the first "it" farther away in the sentence and is thus more awkward. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Bob, can you explain this? The word it was not moved.  A second instance of the word was added.  So which it is farther away, and what is it farther away from?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the original version of the sentence.
 * To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything.
 * The "it" is referring to "all material added to articles". In your proposed version "all material added to articles" is moved farther away from the first "it" and is thus more awkward in my opinion.
 * To show that it is not original research, it must be possible to attribute all material added to articles to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This could be solved by eliminating the needless preposition:
 * To show that the material is not original research, it must be possible to attribute all material added to articles to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything.
 * Would that work for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That fixes the problem that I mentioned. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a little reluctant to keep the introductory phrase at all, because documenting compliance with NOR is IMO neither the only nor even the primary reason why we insist on verifiability. So another option is simply to shorten the sentence:  It must be possible to attribute all material added to articles to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything.  Perhaps you would prefer that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdong, I basically agree with you. In addition to what you want, I think that the paragraph should start with what is now a later sentence "This policy...". Would the following version of the paragraph accomplish what you want?
 * This policy requires that any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. In practice you do not need to attribute everything, but it should be possible.   For how to write citations, see Citing sources.
 * 1. See the discussion about sources in WP:NOR that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I might say "possible to do so", just to avoid any possible misunderstanding, but that would work for me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion continued at the section below Second paragraph of lead. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, though the idea that Google is the standard for "possible" is rather troubling. I was more concerned with the editor who has a good but obscure paper source, or perhaps an OCR-resistant scanned image such as are fairly common at archive.org. By not citing the source he renders the result very difficult (though not impossible) to verify. Yet he (perhaps alone) knows that it can be verified. Somehow we should convey that the mandate is to ensure that a reader has the necessary clues to be able to winkle out the verifying source, should she choose to do so.
 * The four types listed at wp:MINREF are not exactly concordant with the list at wp:WIAGA and at wp:When to cite. This inconsistency strikes me as causing a giant waste of effort in the article improvement path, but that too is a separate issue. LeadSongDog come howl!  22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * MINREF links to the higher standards for GA and FA. There's a substantial gap between our absolute minimum requirements and our ideal article.  (There's even a substantial gap between GA and FA, although some GA reviewers have trouble believing this.)  MINREF is supposed to list the non-negotiable bare minimum, not the FA ideal.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A good point. There is a distinction between "minimum acceptable" citation and "best practice" citation.  I think we need to cover both, but it is a bit much to cover it in the lede. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we'd solve both with something like: Readers must be able to attribute find the attribution of all material in articles to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, though in practice editors need not cite every attributable statement. LeadSongDog  come howl!  20:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Because readers don't need to be able to attribute anything. Only editors do any actual attribution work here.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Revised accordingly above. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What about: "Editors must be able to provide attribution, so readers know the material comes from a reliable source and is not Original Research." Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's a complete statement of why we require verifiability, and thus I wouldn't recommend including the last half of the sentence. There are many benefits to verifiability that have nothing to do with signalling reliability to readers or preventing original research.  For example, verifiability tends to result in a higher quality product because editors go look stuff up rather than relying on their memories, and it produces quick resolutions in certain kinds of disputes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Peer comments on Guardian source in the Newspaper blogs' section
There is a Guardian source mentioned in the newspaper blogs' section, which forwards an inference that goes, in my opinion, much beyond the actual PCC ruling. Our Verifiability policy on newspaper blogs quotes, "the Press Complaints Commission in the UK commented that it expected journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines to be subject to the standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions." I believe this was the comment of a PCC director to a news magazine. The actual PCC ruling has no such inference on all newspapers. The statement from the PCC ruling goes like this, "As such, the Commission believed that the onus was on the magazine to ensure that it was corrected authoritatively online." There is no mention that PCC expects all journalists' blogs hosted on newspaper/magazine websites to be subject to the standards of comment pieces in the organisation's print editions. The adjudication is clearly one focused on a single item. How should we handle this issue? I'm not sure... I'll be grateful for more eyes on this. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 04:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we appropriately change the newsblog section to represent the verified statement of PCC; or drop the statement altogether. This is just a suggestion; any views would be welcome. Wifione  Message 05:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Last call for suggestions before I change the newsblog section :)  Wifione  Message 06:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In the original version, the source was a Guardian article that said,
 * "The PCC director, Stephen Abell, said: 'This is a significant ruling because it shows that the PCC expects the same standards in newspaper and magazine blogs that it would expect in comment pieces that appear in print editions."
 * So it was the PCC director's comment, rather than the ruling, that the policy page was using. Although technically the original version of the policy page was correct because it ultimately was using the ruling via the PCC director's interpretation.  Also, from the director's comments we see that PCC rulings are like case law and thus can be more general in their impact than just the specific case in the ruling. We can make a simple edit of the original version to better describe the information.


 * Suggest changing the original from:
 * In a March 2010 ruling, an independent, voluntary regulatory body, the Press Complaints Commission in the UK commented that it expected journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines to be subject to the standards expected of comment pieces in that organization's print editions.


 * To:
 * A March 2010 ruling of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) in the UK, showed that the PCC expected journalists' blogs hosted on the websites of newspapers or magazines to be subject to the standards expected of comment pieces in print editions.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob, thanks for the feedback. Some changes have already taken place; tell me what you feel of it. I'm quite ok with the same (cept one change which I may or may not make). I believe the PCC director's quote is unreliable as the interpretation went too much beyond the ruling, which did not generalize any such case law. In any way, the PCC accepts on its website that it does not have and does not wish to have legal powers. But that is beyond the point. Tell me what you think of the current changes. Best. Wifione  Message 03:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, here comes the Wikipedia blackout. I'll look at it again afterwards. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Tell me what you think of the current changes."—I have some problems with them. First let's see if we can come to an agreement on what the PCC ruling means, which is the basis of the main point of your edit.  Regarding the blog in question, the  PCC ruling stated, “Instead, it was a statement of fact. As such, the Commission believed that the onus was on the magazine to ensure that it was corrected authoritatively online.”
 * This appears to be a general principle that came out of this case.  Its significance and meaning was noted by Stephen Abell, the director of the PCC. Abell stated, “This is a significant ruling because it shows that the PCC expects the same standards in newspaper and magazine blogs that it would expect in comment pieces that appear in print editions.” Abell’s statement was widely quoted. You're  entitled to your opinion, but I think Abell understands the PCC better, his remark makes sense to me, and it seems to make sense to the reliable sources that reported it. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. We could strike a balance. We could have the PCC director's line put back. We should then also necessarily mention somewhere that while opinions may or may not be correct on newspaper blogs, it is the responsibility of newspapers to correct "factual statements". In other words, I do think the PCC Director was also talking about this only, that the PCC expects newspapers to correct the facts mentioned in blogs and not necessarily the opinions. What do you think? Thanks for the response. Wifione  Message 06:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like we agree on the meaning of the ruling. For me there is a question of how much weight to give to this ruling in the Verifiability policy. The 2010 ruling seems to only indicate the state of blogs on UK news media after Mar 2010 that gives the PCC authority. It doesn’t apply to US or other countries’ news media. Also, it looks like The Guardian tried to defend the blog to the PCC by saying that the responses to the blog by the public are a way of checking the facts. This suggests that news media not subscribing to the PCC rulings may not  think that blogs need to be checked for accuracy like their print editions. So I don’t think this PCC info is useful for this policy in determining the credibility of blogs and it might be better to take the option you mentioned in your second message here and “drop the statement altogether”, i.e. delete the PCC ruling info. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a very interesting response Bob. I'll tell you the genesis of this policy. It was in the footnote earlier, then was shifted to the main policy last year and then this link added. The point is - does not this ruling prove that opinions in newspaper blogs in general are not subject to a newspaper's editorial policy; but facts are? In other words, that while facts can be depended on if one refers to a newspaper blog, but not opinions of the author. I'm just extending this to get your view so I'm clear what exactly to cut and what exactly to update. Wifione  Message 05:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Re “...does not this ruling prove that opinions in newspaper blogs in general are not subject to a newspaper's editorial policy; but facts are?”—

It doesn't prove anything but it indicates that the British news organizations that accept the UK-based PCC as an authority, aren't responsible for the opinions in their blogs, but are responsible for the facts. This doesn’t apply to news organization blogs in general which don't recognize the PCC's authority. However, some of these other news organizations may still voluntarily conform to the PCC ruling, if they didn't already have similar policies.

If the blog’s defense given to the PCC by The Guardian is the position of some other news organizations too, then at least some news organizations outside the UK may not think they had a responsibility to check anything in  their blogs. However, I think in practice, news organizations exercise some editorial oversight of their blogs.

Based on the apparent uncertainty of whether news organizations in general check the facts in their blogs, I would suggest deleting the PCC ruling info and modifying the sentence before it, along with a few minor additions of “blog” to the rest of the section. The resulting section would look like the following.


 * Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the newspaper's normal fact checking process. Where a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote..."). Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For blogs that are not reliable sources, see Self-published sources below.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with your statement. Let's wait a couple more days for responses. If none come, let's upload the change. Wifione  Message 20:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: Change implemented. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)