Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 56

A least contentious part of previous proposal
How about trying to add to the policy a least contentious part of the proposal first? You might be surprised that even the least contentious part might be blocked. If that's the case, it's good to know where you stand. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What would you say is the least contentious part? Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Candidates would be any part that doesn't change the first sentence. Of those candidates, which one do you think should be most easily accepted? For reference, here's the previous proposal,

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


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked you first! :>) Blueboar (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I answered by offering the candidates. Anything but the first sentence. Also, I would keep it minimal. One possibility is adding to the first paragraph the two sentences from the proposal, "While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion."


 * So again, what do you think should be most easily accepted?--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * At this point, I really have no idea what would be the most easily accepted... so lets take your suggestion and find out.
 * Does anyone object to adding: "While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion." to the first paragraph?  Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No objection (olive (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC))


 * No objection, but I think all this has a much better chance as a footnote. I think we should draft a footnote to VnT, and I think such a footnote could actually be inserted without too much objection.  The only thing I know is a bright line for me is the inclusion of anything that might allow someone to say that they can insert their truth in WP, as with some of the versions on this page.  Be— —Critical  01:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this is much more likely to work that the complete rewording being discussed lower down. --FormerIP (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

(So far, there have been no objections. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC))

Consensus poll re adding two sentences to first paragraph of WP:Verifiability
Proposal to add to the first paragraph of the lead,
 * "While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion."

These two sentences are excerpts from the proposal of the previous large RfC. This proposal would not change the first sentence of the lead, which was the most contentious part of the previous large RfC. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Current first paragraph:
 * Proposed change that only adds two sentences:
 * Crazynast 17:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Support


 * 1) -- J N  466  16:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support (I'll post a more detailed rationale when I have time) Crazynast 17:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, and I would also like to have WEIGHT directly mentioned or linked there: that's what most influences inclusion on a practical level once reliability requirements are met. Be— —Critical  21:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Some qualms about wording that makes it sound like the only other things affecting inclusion are policies and guidelines, but I think that the benefits outweigh that issue. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Dickylon, but IMHO that is a separate topic and this is not the place to deal with it. North8000 (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Clearly a step in the right direction. Might even turn out to be sufficient. Hans Adler 02:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Reflects and clarifies current policy. LK (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Qualified support as long as no one tries to use this as an attempt to say the issues on this page have all been dealt with. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  02:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Ambivalent support: I agree with the new text's sentiment, and would whole-heartedly support it as a footnote, but feel that the inclusion of such a tangential point directly in the policy's lead will tend to diffuse the policy's focus. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Good first step.(olive (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC))
 * 6) Damn skippy May have some tweaks to the specific language to discuss later, but the intent of the sentences has my full support. -- Jayron  32  06:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Weak Support I agree with Dicklyon's comment below, but this wording is an improvement over the current wording. I would rather the lead confused people than give them wrong idea. Yoenit (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak support Like Yoenit, I agree with Dickylon but feel this wording is nevertheless an improvement. The phrasing does still need to be improved (if this language is used then it's essential to fix "threshold"; there are three instances of the word "inclusion" in quick succession which is clumsy; and there's still the toxic trio to deal with).— S Marshall  T/C 12:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Mugginsx (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support I do not see any contradiction with "threshold" which does not imply that it is enough, "threshold" means "The point that must be exceeded to begin producing a given effect or result" so I do not agree with Dicklyon below. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - it is a needed sentence. This makes it clear that Verifiability is not the be-all-and-end-all of inclusion, just the first requirement of inclusion.  Blueboar (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Works for me I liked the verifiability, not truth version better, but this works. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 11:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Support only insofar as the only other option here is for the status quo, which is worse. The "verifiability, not truth" line is Wikipedia's greatest single piece of idiotic dogma received from The Gods and therefore unquestionable. Oh, maybe "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" would count, too. I digress. The principle should be: "Information in Wikipedia must satisfy two criteria: verifiability and veracity." Carrite (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose
 * 1)  The added sentences seem sensible, but they contradict the apparent meaning of "The threshold".  Could it be changed to "A criterion"?  Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the purpose of the proposal was to help avoid that possible misunderstanding that verifiability alone is sufficient for inclusion. The current first sentence of WP:Verifiability is a very contentious issue and difficult to change, as evidenced by the previous large RfC.  So we are trying to improve the policy as best we can. Changing from "threshold" to something else is a possibility for another proposal. With regard to the current proposal, would you consider that this is at least an improvement? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the point, but since "The threshold" implies it's enough, I can't support this version that makes an explicit logical inconsistency. I won't fight it if it's what people want to do, but since you brought it up, I went ahead and posted the alternative proposal below.  I'll be interested in seeing whether anyone who supports this one will oppose the alternative.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was a mistake to put up the alternate proposal now and the complication might make it more difficult for any proposal to gain consensus and be implemented. BTW, various changes for "threshold" have been discussed before and "criterion" was just one of them. I would ask editors to focus on this original proposal, and put off consideration of changing "threshold" to something else until after this original proposal is settled. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, I 100% agree with your point.  But that is a separate issue, and a change to the first sentence, and IMHO combining the two here would be fatal for the proposal. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * IIRC, "threshhold" was added to the lede about 5 or 6 years ago to make clear that verifiability was a minimum, but not sufficient, requirement for inclusion. Alas, it is quite clear that not everybody agrees on the meaning of just about any word or phrase (which is why the language of law is so stilted - words and phrases mean what is defined in laws and lawbooks, not what most people think they mean). I am afraid that any attempt to substitute other wording will just result in some people interpreting that wording differently than you intended. -- Donald Albury 15:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And I didn't recall correctly, "threshold" has been there since "verifiability, not truth" was added on 25 August 2005. -- Donald Albury 18:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure enough, and just one talk comment questioned that new section, and nobody talked about what "threshold" was supposed to mean. Maybe I don't interpret "the threshold" as others do?  Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Verifiability is the only necessary requirement for inclusion.  WP:DUE and WP:COPYVIO are used to exclude verifiable material.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Verifiability is the only necessary requirement for inclusion." — I didn't understand this comment since other policies have requirements for inclusion and only satisfying the requirement of verifiability is not enough for inclusion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, do you agree that the first word of WP:V, "the," is current policy? Policy is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.  Is "the" a mistake, or does it mean something?  Now to attempt an explanation for the support positions here, they may be considering "not excluded" as an "inclusion" criterion.  Is that what the supports here mean, that "not insignificant under WP:DUE" is an inclusion criterion?  And that "not a copyright violation" is an inclusion criterion?  Is "not original research" an inclusion criterion?  BTW, for us neophytes, what are these "other" policies and guidelines that have inclusion criteria in them?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Well, do you agree that the first word of WP:V, "the," is current policy?" — Yes. When I just looked, "The" was still the first word.
 * Re "...'not insignificant under WP:DUE' is an inclusion criterion? And that 'not a copyright violation' is an inclusion criterion?  Is 'not original research' an inclusion criterion?" — Yes to all three questions. Those are three reasons why verifiability "is not a guarantee of inclusion" and is what the proposed added two sentences say. I think this particular criticism of yours pertains to a possible problem with the phrase "The threshold",  rather than the two sentences of the proposal which mitigate that possible problem.
 * Re "BTW, for us neophytes, what are these "other" policies and guidelines that have inclusion criteria in them?" — That is discussed later in the policy. The sentence of the proposal that you are referring to is meant to give a reason why  verifiability is not a guarantee of inclusion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing that "the" is still the first word in the policy. As Dickylon has made clear, the current proposal contradicts itself with the first word.  Regarding relevant policies and guidelines being discussed lower in the policy, I looked at WP:V, and WP:NOT is only listed in the sidebar.  We are sounding like greybeards by saying "other policies and guidelines" without a clear understanding of the meaning.  I do not see WP:OR as relevant to a discussion of inclusion or exclusion of verifiable material, because the very nature of WP:OR is that there is the absence of verifiable material, thus WP:OR fails the threshold.  Regarding the word "the", I believe that with consistency, the wording gets simpler: The two sentences, "While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion.  Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion." can be replaced with the one sentence, "While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, verifiable material may be excluded under WP:DUE, WP:NOT, and WP:COPYVIO."  Unscintillating (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like we're not communicating on key points, so I'll stop here. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose   Given that the poll is seemingly about the addition of two modifying sentences that have the apparent effect of correctly bringing in other relevant criteria, I initially would be tempted to support the proposal. However, the aggregate effect of the proposed language ends up placing even greater emphasis on "The threshold" (definite article is now in physical apposition / same paragraph as "other policies and guidelines" that merely "affect"(sic) inclusion, and which this language thus implies are of lesser importance than verifiability. In practice, I have seen this taken to mean that "bosh" can be included, and it is just a matter of "finding the right form of words that carefully reflect the RS." I oppose the proposal, as use of the definite article is utterly incorrect. These other criteria, as well as softer matters such as stylistic issues and so forth, can also appropriately lead to exclusion of particular material. As written, I am concerned that the proposal will result in an even greater burden in getting rid of bosh that can be verified, but which is nonetheless bosh (as per these other criteria.) In summary, while acknowledging that the proposal has attractive elements, I feel that the two new sentences are not doing justice to the other important longstanding WP criteria. If it would be helpful, I would be glad to cite several circumstances where the proposed language would be counterproductive. (I also entered this opinion in a section below, adjacent to a "framing" comment that "The threshold" is what this poll is restrictively interested in. I would like to see "The threshold" replaced, and then support the proposal, but I accept we are not being given that option. FeatherPluma (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC))
 * The problem you mentioned is with the long standing policy phrase "The threshold", which is not part of this proposal. This problem is mitigated by the first of the two sentences of the proposal which states, "While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion."
 * Re your comment, "If it would be helpful, I would be glad to cite several circumstances where the proposed language would be counterproductive." — Perhaps it would help if you cited the circumstance that best supports your objection. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional Comments
 * I guess this strikes me as non-controversial (but just wait for me to be proven wrong!). I think these are good things to add, but I also think there are reasons why Blueboar argued for the parenthetical phrase that is not included here. And of course the real elephant in the room (VNT) is deliberately not addressed here, so I wonder whether there might be issues related to not addressing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Baby steps, right? Crazynast 17:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. I'm just exploring whether there are any tears. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My objections are purely compositional. There are simply too many iterations of the the word "inclusion". Perhaps?...
 * 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. While verifiability is a requirement, other equally important Wikipedia policies and guidelines play an indispensable role in any consideration for content inclusion.
 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Such stylistic tweaks can be easily considered if the proposal gains consensus and is implemented. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Puts out a good thought. But opens a can of worms by incompletely trying to explain something which is not a part of wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * These two sentences are excerpts from the proposal of the previous large RfC that you vigorously supported. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I vigorously supported it because it was a compromise which would resolve this, and because it reduced the unintended impacts of not truth, not because I liked every part of it. The final phrase of this is the thing that I liked the least because it it implies that the only rationale for leaving out sourced material is if it violates a different wikipedia requirement. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See "previous proposal" at the top of the main part of this section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well North, I guess we have a difference of opinion. I think it is an improvement because it clarifies that verfiability alone isn't sufficient for inclusion. Also, there didn't seem to be much if any problem about this from the comments in the large RfC, although it wouldn't surprise me if you found a few in the 444 comments. Anyhow, lets see what others think. Also, I get the distinct impression that you are vigorously against this proposal, so I'm curious why you didn't simply say Oppose? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It has an important offsetting good point because, as you said, it clarifies that verfiability alone isn't sufficient for inclusion. Sincerely,   North8000 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That other policies affect inclusion is clearly outlined in the fourth paragraph of the lede: "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."  Dreadstar  ☥   19:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wish that actually happened! It's quite common for people to say that verifiability is a force for inclusion rather than a requirement for inclusion North8000 (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar, I disagree regarding clarity since the fourth paragraph doesn't clearly say that verifiability is not a guarantee for inclusion and because where it is situated it does not connect well with the first sentence. But you're entitled to your opinion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar's right in that it's already in there. Repeating things explicitly can't hurt though.  Explicit mention of WEIGHT is missing from V, and it shouldn't be.  Be— —Critical  22:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm convinced, I'll support. North8000 (talk) 22:51, 27 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)
 * Your comment is about polls in general on policy pages, and thus seems to be a bit off-topic. But anyone should feel free to respond if they want to. Also, I've added to this talk page a section Polling concept on policy pages for discussion of this topic.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved the following two messages to here because they no longer apply to the statement of the proposal. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it is't the technical current wording, but the stylistic change I proposed doesn't seem to be gaining consensus (below). So, I posted what is generally regarded as the current status quo. Regards. Crazynast 18:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the stylistic change Crazynas proposed, not truth instead of not truth, is of no consequence regarding the acceptability of this proposal. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Time stamp to delay auto-archiving to a month after opening of consensus poll. Bob K31416 (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
Given the conflict between the original wording "The threshold" and the added sentences that say getting over that threshold is not enough, let us also consider a version in which "The threshold" is changed to "A criterion":


 * Proposed change that adds two sentences as above, and also changes the first two words to avoid a logical conflict:

Support


 * 1) Support as nom.  I hate to see making a change that embeds a logical conflict as the one above does; this is better; and if someone is quick to suggest something even better, I wouldn't mind revising the alternative proposal.  Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support This is way better than the above proposal. Ramaksoud2000 (talk to me) 01:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose



Additional Comments
 * I think it was a mistake for Dicklyon to put up this alternate proposal now, and the complication might make it more difficult for any proposal to gain consensus and be implemented. BTW, various changes for "threshold" have been discussed before and "criterion" was just one of them.   I would ask editors to focus on the original proposal, and put off  consideration of  changing "threshold" to something else until after the original proposal is settled.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the poll is therefore about "The threshold" I oppose the original proposal. Use of the definite article is utterly incorrect. (I also entered this opinion in the preceding section.) FeatherPluma (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My personal reaction is that such a change is fine (and no big deal), but I also believe that making such a change would have a deleterious effect on an eventual proposal regarding some improvement with respect to VNT. A significant number of community members who opposed in the last RfC feel quite strongly about making as few changes to the lead as possible. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph of lead
I think the most useful part of the second paragraph of the lead is the discussion of the inline citation requirement and that it must be possible to attribute. The present starting phrase about OR doesn't seem very useful. Note that the OR link is also given in the fourth paragraph and there is a link to a specific section of NOR in the footnote of the second paragraph.

The present first paragraph defines and requires verifiability. With the proposed change, the second paragraph would better focus on the explanation and requirement of inline citations.


 * Current version:


 * Possible version:


 * The footnote in both versions is the same and is,
 * 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.

This possible change to the second paragraph came out of a discussion with WhatamIdoing in a previous section Boldly substituting a dictionary equivalency. The discussion here is meant to be a continuation of that discussion about this possible change, rather than a consensus poll. Please comment. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We need to keep the "to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question" bit because the three critical characteristics (WP:Reliable, WP:Published, and Appropriate) need to be present in the lead. Thus the end of the first sentence should read something like "…inline citation to a reliable, published source that is appropriate for the content and that directly supports the material."
 * (Also, if you'll let me be pedantic, bibliographic citations do not support material; only sources support material.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Re “We need to keep the ‘to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question’ bit because the three critical characteristics (WP:Reliable, WP:Published, and Appropriate) need to be present in the lead.”—


 * a) Seems like reliable and published are already mentioned in the first sentence of the lead, “...whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.”


 * b) “Appropriate” seems to be covered by the phrase “directly supports the material”. Perhaps it would help if you could explain what “appropriate for the content” adds to “directly supports the material” in the phrase you suggested, i.e. in the phrase “is appropriate for the content and that directly supports the material."


 * 2. Re “Also, if you'll let me be pedantic, bibliographic citations do not support material; only sources support material.” — Inline citations refer readers to a source of the material, and this act of referring is supporting the material.


 * Being “pedantic” can interfere with trying to write with elegant clarity. Note that one could be  pedantic and say that sources don’t support the material; only some of the information in a  source supports the material.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A self-published blog is not an "appropriate" source for a contentious claim about a BLP, even if the blog posting directly supports the claim in the BLP article. A textbook on English grammar is not an "appropriate" source for information about mathematics, even if it happens to include a sentence that directly supports the claim in the math article.  A passing mention of some geographical fact (e.g., "as we walked northward from the building towards the train tracks") in a magazine article primarily about something entirely unrelated is not an "appropriate" source for geographical claims, even if it directly supports a statement that there is a building somewhere south of the train tracks.
 * An appropriate source is a source that editors generally consider to be a good source for the material in question. Appropriate sources for encyclopedia articles are primarily on the subject in question and are authored or published in a way that gives you confidence that the material is accurate.  The passing mention example that I give is a case of a source clearly meeting all the requirements for a reliable source, but still not being appropriate.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * From your examples I see what you mean. Would adding the phrases "directly related to the topic of the article" from WP:NOR and "of a reliable source" work, as presented by the underlined parts in the following modified version?
 * This policy requires that any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, be attributed in the form of an inline citation. The citation should be for a reliable source that is directly related to the topic of the article and directly supports the material.
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I don't usually follow NOR, so I don't know what the editors there intended when they added this phrase, or how it's been interpreted in the past.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Second paragraph of lead — Break
The phrase "directly related to the topic of the article", that I mentioned in my previous message, is a long-standing phrase in the first paragraph of the lead of WP:NOR and specifically is in the following sentence over there.


 * "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented."

The purpose of the phrase "directly related to the topic of the article" in WP:NOR, is to address situations like those of the relevant examples mentioned by WhatamIdoing. Here is the possible version of the second paragraph of the lead, updated after considering various suggestions, along with the current version in the policy for reference.


 * Current version:


 * Possible version:


 * The footnote in both versions is the same and is,
 * 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.

I invite everyone to continue this discussion of the possible version. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One thing I really like about the current version is that it points out how the concept of Verifiability is linked to the concept of No original research... if we change the current version (and I am not opposed to that), this explanation should be incorporated elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more than just connected to NOR... the two are intimately intertwined. Verifiability is how we know something is not Original Research.  WP:V explains "how" while WP:NOR explains "why".  Blueboar (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Recalling your message before your last, "One thing I really like about the current version is that it points out how the concept of Verifiability is linked to the concept of No original research... if we change the current version (and I am not opposed to that), this explanation should be incorporated elsewhere."—


 * On second thought, the section Verifiability in this policy appears to already have what you want, so no further change is needed if the possible version is implemented. Here's the section for reference.

The "No original research" policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:
 * 1) All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source. This means that a source must exist for it, whether or not it is cited in the article.
 * 2) Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.
 * 3) Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase... I really like having something in the lede that explicitly notes the interconnection of WP:V and WP:NOR. I think the current first sentence of the second paragraph does this well, and I would certainly prefer a version that retained this sentence somewhere in the lede... that said, by no means do I insist on retaining it, nor would I "block" a proposed change that was gaining consensus in order to keep it. Blueboar (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's see what others think. For others' consideration, note that except for the first phrase about NOR, the rest of the sentence is essentially incorporated into the possible version. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it, too. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 16:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this will work, and at minimum is an improvement over the old version, although I'm still uncertain about the implications of the "directly related to the topic of the article" phrase. If we see too much wikilawyering about it ("No, the topic is about 'homeopathy', and 'criticism of homeopathy' isn't 'directly related'") then we might want to revisit it.
 * Blueboar, I don't mind mentioning the relationship between NOR and WP:V in the lede, but I don't think that the old version is a good way to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support. The phrase "directly related to the topic of the article" has been in the lead of WP:NOR for three years, so it has already survived the test you were concerned about. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the Lead
The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is,
 * "To show that all material added to Wikipedia is not original research, it must be possible to attribute it to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question."

This doesn't appear to make sense because being possible to attribute material to an RS doesn't show anything. For example, if some material didn't have an inline citation, how would a reader know that the material isn't OR? It's inline citations that show that material is not OR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you happen to know that it's true, or you have good reason to believe it is attributable, leave it in. That's all it's saying.  If you think it's OR, or has a good chance of being OR, or would not be attributable to an RS, then challenge it and then a citation is required.  Be— —Critical  05:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "If you happen to know that it's true, or you have good reason to believe it is attributable, leave it in. That's all it's saying." — That may be what you want it to say, but it's not saying that. It's talking about showing that material is not OR. As I mentioned in my last message, "being possible to attribute" doesn't show that. You need inline citations to show that something isn't OR.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I happen to agree with you, but that's not the way they do it. I think that if something is unsourced and isn't obvious, it needs to be sourced by it's author (unless someone else is kind enough to come along and source it) or it should be deleted.  But others disagree, see WP:PRESERVE.  Be— —Critical  05:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your remarks have drifted off-topic. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: The first sentence of the second paragraph has been changed to a previous version by Dreadstar.
 * "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 same criticism of not making sense applies to this older version too. Being attributable does not show anything. Without an inline citation, both attributable and non-attributable material appear the same. Inline citations are needed to show that material is not original research. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense, being attributable does indeed show something - it's part of the scope and groundwork of that component of this Policy. Also, that entire paragraph of the lead is discussing that component, summarizing the major elements; so cherry-picking one sentence and saying it doesn't make sense doesn't make sense.  Technically, I think there's too much emphasis on Verifiability being proof against OR, and would prefer an older version instead of the current one; while retaining the stronger wording "This policy requires..". Dreadstar  ☥   21:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Without an inline citation, text that is attributable looks just the same as text that is not attributable. So how does being attributable show it is not OR? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It describes the principle, not the visual component. They may look alike, but there's an underlying difference which needs to be clearly and firmly stated. Dreadstar  ☥   21:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't show that underlying difference, then you aren't showing anything. An inline citation is needed to show that text is attributable and thus that it is not OR. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is showing the underlying difference. The definition of 'show' is broader than actually saying "Oh, look at this difference right here using your visual senses."  Perhaps "assure" would be a better word...?  Dreadstar  ☥   00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Assure doesn't work for the same reason. How would the reader be assured if they don't know it's attributable? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is deleniating the concept that's supposed to be followed when adding content Bob, it's not supposed to be a visual cue or some kind of immediate proof - it's the basis of the whole idea of verifiability, which is then strenghtened and enforced by the requirement for cited sources under the curcumstances outlined in the policy.. Which is why 'possible' was added, you need to add content where it is possible to verify through reliable sources.  Dreadstar  ☥   02:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Re "It is deleniating the concept that's supposed to be followed when adding content" — To express that thought, the following would be a way to do it which doesn't have the problem with "show",
 * "Material added to an article must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the guidelnes state that we only have to reference claims that are likely to be disputed.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any previous discussions that express confusion around the word 'show', looking through the archives I see many discussions about the "show" sentence, not a one seems to make the complaint you do, so I'm not sure why this is such a big issue. And while your latest version is a closer match to the version I indicated above, it still lacks the apparently necessary linkage to WP:NOR.  Dreadstar  ☥   04:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just better. The "show" version doesn't make sense. When people read it, there is something akin to a Suspension of disbelief for the poor writing, just like you are doing when you read it, but you don't realize it. There doesn't seem to be a point to continuing our two-way discussion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "It's just better" is akin to "because I said so!"...lol....I think I just have a better understanding of 'show' and 'assure' than you do...plus, I like this Policy and completely understand and back it - which is prolly more to the point. I realized our two-way discussion was pointless a couple of years ago when you rudely insulted my intelligence way back then.  Dreadstar  ☥   04:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the "show" problem, the sentence discusses "Original research" when the reader hasn't been informed as to the meaning of the term. It's as if the sentence was written for those who already know the information that it is trying to convey. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why there's a link...and it's necessary for editors and users to become familiar with all three core content policies, so I don't see a probem with that. But I have already indicated that I'm not sure if it is necessary to make that statement as it currently stands.  Dreadstar  ☥   05:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "But I have already indicated that I'm not sure if it is necessary to make that statement as it currently stands." — Maybe we could work on that. Could you review and expand your thoughts on that? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Drafts
Verifiability is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion. If the verifiability of any text in Wikipedia has been challenged, or if it is likely to be challenged, the source must be stated in the form of an inline citation. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed without further discussion. Unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately.

Verifiability, No original research and the Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace.

Be— —Critical 17:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Alt Draft
All information on Wikipedia's articles must be verifiable by published reliable sources. Some information, specifically information that has been or is likely to be challenged, quotes and contentious info on living people must contain inline citations which directly support the claim. Material not meeting these standards may be removed with no additional reason and contentious material on living people must be removed immediately.

Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion. This policy, along with No original research and the Neutral point of view, makes up Wikipedia's core content policies for what material may be included. These policies work together to determine what content should be included in articles, so editors should understand the key points of all three.

Simpler language
Keeping the above statements but refactoring to short sentences with simpler words:

LeadSongDog come howl!  05:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * On the whole, I like that. How about a minor tweak:

"All information must already have been published in a reliable source so it can be checked by others. (This is what we mean by "verifiable".)" Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 12:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Another draft: first paragraph:

 * Comments about this draft


 * I've added Blueboar's suggestion below to the original draft.(olive (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC))

-Needed: Needed is used incorrectly in the policy as it stands now, an inanimate object does not "need" anything. We use the word in popular speech this way, for example, the soup needs spice, but its not correct. At the least grammar and syntax must be strong in our policies. The soup does not need anything. What we are really saying is, I think the soup would taste better with spice.

-I've rearranged and replaced needed with "must" per WhatAmIdoing's comment although I think required is also good. The lead, especially the first sentences must be sucicnt and concise and must right off the mark summarize the policy per the editor and per the reader, and clearly delineate the two.

-This policy has been misused so its important to be strong in guiding the editor, with clear concise wording. If we blur the edges of the policy or weaken its guiding power we open loopholes editors with agendas can drive trucks through. Its the job of the policy to not only instruct but to make it difficult for editors with issues that do not support an encyclopedia a place to hang onto. The policy has to help those editors too.(olive (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC))
 * That does nothing to address the systemic problems with the first sentence, which are "threshold" and the toxic trio.— S Marshall T/C 16:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there agreement that's a toxic trio. I don't think so. That sentence is already in place and apparently for now has consensus or it wouldn't bet there. I'm trying to work with what's in place. There is no agreement to remove that opening sentence, and doing so requires another RfC. Its a major change. Any chance of dealing with what we have now. I can't agree to weakening a policy that has been misused repeatedly (olive (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Why don't we do something like this:


 * All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. This means that the information must have been published in a reliable source. 


 * Then go and create a separate page for VnT, which is itself a policy page. Give the traditional formulation, and explain it well, and link it here and use it as a footnote.  That way we can still use VnT and also get it out of the lead.  Be— —Critical  16:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think its a smart idea, but we need an opening sentence that has impact and holds the whole policy in its words. Readers often do not read far into a policy in their first days. Every choreographer, and writer, for example, knows that you must capture your audience in the first movements or words  or lose them, and that includes the most sophisticated audience. We need to capture our reader's attention right away, and that requires strong and catchy language. Per S Marshall's comment above, why do we think we are getting a different kind of reader than every choreographer and writer deals with. Why do we think we need to invent a new way of dealing with readers when there's ample experience and evidence on how  to impact readers and audiences. We don't have reinvent the wheel.(olive (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Our one non-negotiable policy is NPOV and the first sentence of NPOV is "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." So we should write, that "All views in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable.  This means that they must have been published in a reliable source." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ergo, "All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable." The second sentence  in my draft above can actually be considered part of the first for this discussion, because both are so short.  Be— —Critical  17:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What we are dealing with when we use a sentence like this:

''The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that readers must be able to check that material on Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, and that what an editor thinks is true is not a criteria for inclusion [under discussion]''

is the misuse of the policy. We have an opening phrase with impact and we then clarify what that means for the reader and for the editor. After that, sure, we can go into further explanations.(olive (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I would suggest that the first sentence of the policy be a simple definition of what we mean by the term "Verifiability"... something along the lines of:
 * "Verifiability is defined on Wikipedia as "the ability to cite sources that directly support the material in an article"."
 * Statements like "all information must be verifiable" and "The threshold for inclusion..." etc can be made after we define the term. Blueboar (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good one, I incorporated that in the first draft above. Be— —Critical  18:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Boxing drafts: I boxed the draft I did... Maybe do the same with the others so they're easy to read?(olive (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Olive states "Readers often do not read far into a policy in their first days", but doesn't ask why they stop. Those two sentences she quotes have a Gunning Fog index of 17.91: a grad student would have difficulty understanding them on first reading. If it needs rereading to be understood, it usually won't be. Hence, they are worse than useless. They tell readers "the rules are too tough to understand" rather than the message they are intended to convey. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sheesh. I couldn't disagree more. I've been a grad student a couple of  times over and I see no problem with those first sentences. We shouldn't confuse succinct and concise with simple. Simple it seems to me is for kids. This isn't a children's encyclopedia. And why don't readers read? I know why students don't read. Many  are busy, lazy, and/or have grown up in an environment of instant everything. I wouldn't expect grad students I've worked with to claim that a book isn't simple enough to read, and if an undergrad even a first year student said  something like that I 'd ask him/her to get extra help. Sorry, I just can't buy that argument(olive (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC))
 * You know what? Neither do I.  But I've had enough experience of people and WP editors to know that it might be a problem.  I want to preserve all the info, including VnT, while still making it easy. Anyway, people who, um, have an average IQ can make valuable contributions.  We may be weeding them out unintentionally.   Be— —Critical  19:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

edit conflict:


 * Are we deliberately writing for people who are less than a senior-in-high-school age (in US/Canadian schools). I don't think we have a standard that says we should write for those under 18. At an index of 17.89, we're writing for high school seniors at the end of the year. If we're writing for younger kids than that then certainly we have to change the wording, but I don't see that we've set that standard.(olive (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Oh, I don't think we're discriminating for intelligence, but we are writing for someone at a high school level of reading ability- a discrimination of sorts for education.(olive (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC))
 * sorry about last edit summary ... I did a cut and paste on my comment because of edit conflict and must have used an old summary without noticing.(olive (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC))
 * The standard we're writing for varies, and it's right that it varies. For example, Taylor's theorem is (correctly) pitched at an undergraduate level, while Mathematics is (correctly) pitched at a high school level.  This is not the Simple English Wikipedia so it doesn't have to be written for people who have learning difficulties, but Wikipedia is for everyone, and in my opinion everything in the 1,000 core topics should be readable by an intelligent and curious, but uninformed, African pre-teen.  Policies are different in that they have to be readable by editors.  Personally I think most Wikipedia editors are literate and read effortlessly, and most can read undergraduate-level English—but I also think that policies should be aimed at the kind of editors who will be told to read them, i.e. someone who is experiencing some difficulty in getting to grips with Wikipedian norms.  Such editors may be children, or have English as a second language.  I think this means that if we can simplify the language without simplifying the underlying thoughts, then we should do so. Another point: VNT in the lede does not enjoy consensus support. The situation is that VNT endures only because Wikipedians have not been able to reach a consensus about how best to replace it.— S Marshall  T/C 19:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're saying this is a children's encyclopedia if we are writing policies for children. An African American Pre Teen? Tsk. The inference there is not appropriate. If its in the lead it is for now the consensus version, and is until consensus for another version is implemented.(olive (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC))
 * He didn't say African American, he said African, that is, a person who usually has ESL, and possibly not the best education. There are other ESL editors who should be given a simple, but not in any way watered down, policy text.  I want to keep VnT, but put it in another place, and keep it as policy.  What do you think of that?   Be— —Critical  19:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I misread. :o\ My experience with footnotes is that most don't read them. My preference is to have VnotT in the first paragraph as I have. Anything that waters this policy down will cause even more problems than we have now. I guess that's where I'd stand on this issue (or sit).(olive (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC))
 * The people who most need to understand the policy quickly are those who are newbies here and don't know the jargon; and those who have little experience of working in an academic-type-writing environment. This means that we need to ensure that the wording is clear enough for anybody with a moderate reading skill to understand.  The simpler, the better.  People of high IQ, and Uni-type education, are still going to be able to understand it.  There's no need to wrap this policy up in high-academic-level writing; it's a simple enough concept, and by doing that all we do is reduce the number of our readers who can understand it.  Now that's just plain daft, isn't it?  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 20:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Right now the policy's first lines are at the level of a 17+ year old. That's a high school level or more-mature, kids level. We shouldn't get sidetracked on this in my opinion. No one is arguing for complex academic language. Someone is arguing for writing to a pre teen ESL level-an 11 or 12 year old who doesn't speak English well. We have another encyclopedia for that, Simple English Wikipedia. (olive (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I don't think we can make it clear enough without writing it to about high school level. But it could be much simplified and better written.  So what I would support is a non-policy rewrite which explains it in simpler terms, or maybe a link to simple WP. And rewriting it here with greater simplicity, but without leaving any wiggle room or leaving out any concepts.  Be— —Critical  21:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BeCritical seems to be suggesting a link to simple:Wikipedia:Verifiability. Which is a frankly brilliant idea for all sorts of reasons, although I'm sure there are editors who will go into conniptions about it.— S Marshall  T/C 22:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks (: Yes, we could link to that formulation for people who can't understand this one.  But as that formulation shows, being extremely simple leaves gaping holes for POV pushers to jump through.  We need the flexibility that slightly more complex language allows us, in order to keep the policy at full strength.  I would never support any formulation that wasn't just as strong as the current one.  I think that's what people are most afraid of here: that policy will be weakened.  If we can be sure that it isn't weakened, then we might have a chance at a rewrite.   Be— —Critical  22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Weakens the policy" is a matter of opinion and like most opinion statements on policy talk pages is usually just code for "I don't like this change". For example, personally my opinion is that "not truth" is a red herring, a mere distraction from what this policy is really about (an obligation to cite sources), and therefore "weakens the policy".  But you'll observe other users who opine very strongly that removing "not truth" is what would "weaken the policy".  Do you see why "weakens the policy" is not a useful thing to say?— S Marshall  T/C 22:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not 17.9 years of age, but 17.9 years of (English-language) education. That's the Gunning Fog index for the existing first para. "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.[under discussion] While verifiability is needed for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion." That's a Master of Arts level, and is far to high a barrier to entry and as such is a gross betrayal of "anyone can edit". LeadSongDog come howl!  23:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not familiar with it, perhaps because a fair amount of my  education was not in the US. However In grad school, Lit. and in Art, in the US, I've never heard it used or mentioned either. But my mistake. I find it hard to buy an undergraduate student wouldn't know what was being said in he opening paragraph and in my experience with students at the undergrad and grad level they have had no problems with the language. I've worked with high school kids as well and I can tell you this isn't difficult to understand. I guess this is an open to debate issue.(olive (talk) 23:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Well, would have to be a lousy education. Re weakening the policy, I'm sure I'll know it when I see it, if I do.  Be— —Critical  23:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You did understand that we're talking about understanding on first reading, right? Our policy pages are the wrong place to help editors exercise their reading comprehension skills. Remember that a large part of our editors are working in a second language. NPOV isn`t going to happen if we exclude them from equal participation.  LeadSongDog  come howl!  23:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sry. Yeah, I understand.  I think middle and high school should be maybe from age 13 to 15, that's all the time you need to waste before college.  Nevermind, just a random opinion.  Unschooling.  Be— —Critical  00:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a discussion page and as such most of what is written here is opinion. This policy is more complex than an obligation to cite sources. Language can be more or less useful in explaining to the reader what those complexities are, and more or less useful in clearly defining the policy. If the policy had never been abused we probably wouldn't be having this discussion but it has, so now its critical to build the policy language so that it clearly delineates the issues with out rambling off into language that will confuse some editors and open the door for others to misuse it.(olive (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC))
 * The main point of this policy is to put an obligation on editors to verify the information they add to Wikipedia using inline citations to reliable sources.— S Marshall T/C 23:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't the term or phrase "Verifiability" in relation to how the information can be checked. For policy reasons, shouldn't we be making that much clear near the term? Many people reference information in such a cryptic manner as to make it nearly impossible to varify the source. Verifiability allows any reader the ability to check the reference easily. This doesn't mean it has to be a link or anything that directs the reader straight to the source, but that the information is properly attributed so that anyone can locate, read and check the source against the claim. The proposeded change takes that away and defines the term incorrectly as "the ability to cite sources that directly support the material in an article." That isn't varifiabilty, it's simply an ability to cite a source, not check it.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's both... Verifiability is the ability of an editor to provide a source, so that a reader is able check that the source directly supports what is written in the article. Blueboar (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's really so that someone (other than the original editor) can check the material (through some means or another, not necessarily by clicking on a little blue superscripted number). The person doing the checking need not be a (non-editor) reader.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal re "Verifiability not truth"
I propose that this phrase be spun off to a separate page, which page will itself be policy. There to be explained thoroughly. And reference and link it in this article. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 21:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It already has a separate page... see the essay: WP:Verifiability, not truth Blueboar (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that is an essay, not policy. We won't get consensus to let it be an essay.  We have to keep it so people who want to use it can still do so.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * One does not require a consensus to start or write an essay. Anyone may do so and then consensus, if needed, would determine the route such an essay would take if there are several contributors. I see no solid reason to spin off the definition of this term to mean something else. Verifiablitiy is about confirming the source. Truth doesn't seem to enter into this from what I am seeing. It's just about being able to check that the source reflects the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, as I have said before... the sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth" isn't a definition of Verifiability... it's a definition of the threshold for inclusion. As such it would make a great opening sentence for a new policy called WP:The thresholds for inclusion. (spelling out all the things we consider when determining if a specific statement or fact should be included in an article or not). Blueboar (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. The thing I think is important though, or would be important, is to elevate it to the status of policy, so those who want it have real policy to point to.  This is all in order that we can take it out of the first sentence.  Is that too much to ask do you think?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is what it reads now:

I would think this would work well, although I would be for removing the wording "not truth—":

I think the redundancy of "truth" seems odd. But I would respectfully disagree that this isn't a definition. It is, and is meant to inform new users, not just experianced users.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this thinking, Amadscientist, but Blueboar has a point. A policy about verifiability should start by saying what verifiability means. For example:- Once we've established this as a starting point we can go on to talk about inline citations and define what's meant by "reliable source" but first we have to say what we're talking about.— S Marshall  T/C 02:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Gee, this looks familiar. Dreadstar  ☥   02:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So, if I understand this correctly, Blueboar and I are actually arguing the same point. That the wording immediatly after "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" of "Not truth" is not defining the use of the term Varifiability itself, but goes into the "threshold" policy that both he and Becritical wish to raise into actually defining as policy?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I agree that "A policy about verifiability should start by saying what verifiability means.".--Amadscientist (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody really wants to write a "threshold" policy. Blueboar just used that as a way of saying that a policy about verifiability should start by saying what verifiability means.— S Marshall  T/C 02:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was suggesting that a "threshold" policy would be a better place for the VnT language, and might be attempted... I think it would be useful. However, I expect that we would have a very hard time achieving a consensus wording if we were to make the attempt.  14:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So the above was just an example? I think I understand. But, I really like your simplified version here.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So, as it stands a large discussion and working groups formed to examine the first sentence. We are not discussing an actual change in the sentence now or attempting to change or rediscuss the lack of consensus, but whether any further policy would for "inclusion policy" is necessary?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's vital that we define what we mean by "verifiable" very early on. I also think we should cover all the points as simply as we can. I still like this one:

Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 07:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pesky, the problem I can see with that way of putting it is the ambiguous of "it". To someone approaching the policy for the first time, it may not be clear what's to be checked (the information or the reliable source?), and it also may not clear whether this is meant as a Wikipedia-specific definition of verifiability or a general one.  I said "On Wikipedia, verifiability means that readers must be able to check that information in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source" because it's the briefest formulation I can find that I don't think contains any ambiguity.— S Marshall  T/C 10:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeh, that works OK! 'Scuse me if I'm not reading thoroughly at the mo; I have some health niggles which are annoying! Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Putting the title term "verifiability" in a following parenthetical phrase seems inappropriate for its significance. Another possibility:


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Prefer to use the word "cite," since we are telling them they have to use citations. Is there any phrasing besides the one above that would use that word?   That phrase also gives the opportunity to link to OR.  I think it was Blueboar that suggested it "Verifiability is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the material in an article."  Choose a word like "text" or "information" instead of "material."   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  16:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think its fine to start with a definition of what verifiability is as Pesky says, and there are several good examples here. I see the usefulness of a page on "threshold" but don't see such a page as reason to remove "not truth". I'm having hard time understanding the reluctance to leave this phrase alone. As a new user it immediately clued me into what I saw on many articles- attempts to use experience in favour of sources.
 * I do have concerns about more pages and policies connected to WP:Verifiability. I would think we would be edging into instruction creep territory. Aren't we just making this all more complex?(olive (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC))
 * VnT is something that appeals to philosophers and lawyers for use on believers. As such it is useful to have around.  But it's a specialized tool made specifically for the screw that certain people have loose.  It should be kept, but it doesn't need to be the first wording people see or even in the main text.  It could be in a text box off to the side.  If we don't water down the policy any, there's no reason not to write it more simply.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  16:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I'd disagree, actually :o}. Truth is used everyday by all kinds of people, and has layers of meaning dependent on who uses it. I'm willing to see a definition added to open the policy,  I know the syntax is awkward and cumbersome and sometimes  not quite accurate in many places and should be corrected, but removing "not truth"  does indeed begin the process of watering the policy down, so I wouldn't support its removal. My experience with this policy over and over is what I have to go on, so I have to honor that.(olive (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC))
 * How about a box?


 * I think we need to find out where the working groups are on this....or is this the actual working groups? I am not a fan of boxes. If we are keeping "Not truth" perhaps a wiki link on the word truth to the wiki definition as to not confuse new editors.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess I should just come right out and say that the wording has always bothered me because I believe that it encourages falsehoods. It sounds like we are saying truth is unimportant as long as you can varify the lie.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly true, and explaining that is why we need to keep the text around in some form. I prefer your wording, but I don't think people want to have it around ( Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I have no objection to the use of a box as long as formulated as Becritical has done and not using the <> which formats the box on it's own page and can be difficult to locate to edit. I have no objection to any weight issues here with the use of a box.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll be off Wiki for the day. I'll return this evening. Nope, I'm here. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How about a box?
 * Doesn't work. It is, IMHO, a trojan horse, strawman "solution" that isolates "VnT" from its contextual "The threshold for inclusion is..." and would thereby exacerbate, rather than mitigate, the very (highly overstated) problem in perception it now purportedly creates. How many different ways can you package this OR promotion? JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it isolated? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would look better in a smaller font. ;-)— S Marshall T/C 19:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL, well does that mean you like the general idea? Want to post a lead draft for people to work on together?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like the idea. My evolving lead draft is always at User:S Marshall/V.— S Marshall  T/C 19:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

There are three concepts we have to deal with in this policy in the first few lines, in my opinion, and they are intimately interconnected; threshold, verifiable, and "truth" We must be able to find the content in sources that are reliable, and  we must note that identifying those sources does not necessarily mean inclusion, that the" finding" is only the threshold for using reliable sources. If our policy doesn't state that immediately we open the door for cherry picking, and for example, a clever editing method where cherry picked pieces of content are stacked in articles to create subtle POVs while editors claim the pieces of content are verifiable so the outcome in the article must be accurate. When I first joined this discussion in earlier days, I felt our use of truth was not accurate. Truth is an ultimaate and has no place in an effort to define accuracy. However, I realize now that truth for most editors means an accurate reality, usually theirs. So truth seems an appropriate word for most editors to use and  understand as an opposite of verifiable. We can't separate these three concepts by moving part into a box or part onto another page. We have one sentence that carries the message of the policy, and we have an entire policy page to expand and explain it. Its hard for me to see why a compromise, that one line with a entire  page to explain it  is so hard for us to deal with.

The box is an interesting idea but it breaks up the sentence and we lose context, while highlighting in a way that seems to be inappropriate and unprecedented on policy/guideline pages.(olive (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Then how about "Verifiability is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article.[3] All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors." Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to make this work Becrit. At the moment I'm concerned about moving away from the V not T standard. But others may be fine with a change. I'm not sure I can say much else right now.(olive (talk) 06:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC))


 * "Truth" is a red herring. The basic point is that in order to add information, editors have to display its source.  This is the policy that makes you show your working.  If we just said, "Information that isn't reliably-sourced may be removed" and then defined those terms, then that gives us all the tools we need to deal with a POV pusher.  There's no need to mention truth in this policy at all and by mentioning truth, we're opening up a totally unnecessary can of worms.  We need to cut VNT out.  Eventually we need to remove it from the policy completely, but a realistic shorter-term goal is just to get it out of the lede.  We have a large-scale RFC which shows that editors don't want VNT to appear in the lede, so it should be simple to achieve this, and I suggest that we focus on how to achieve it.  Be Critical's draft does achieve it, and is to be endorsed for that reason.— S Marshall  T/C 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I (and many others) strongly disagree with S Marshall on this... I believe that there is a need to mention truth. However, I also believe that we need to change how and where we mention it.
 * The original intent of VnT was to tell editors: Don't add unverifiable material, even if you are convinced that the material is 100% true. This original intent goes to the heart of this policy and needs to be said.  We just need to find a way to say it that achieves consensus.  Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with BlueBoar and I'll add, communities develop over time their own culture and language as Wikipedia has done. Phrases become a way for remembering- cherry picking for example is one such phrase /word. They are short, catchy and can be used to remind.That's what VnotTtruth is. It has become embedded in the community language and carries the meaning of the whole policy with it. There is no reason both the phrase and a longer explanation can't exist side by side. (olive (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC))


 * We don't need to mention "truth." "Truth" is just a standin for belief.  We should say that directly, instead of beating around the bush with the T word.  Our beliefs don't matter, and that's what should be said.  VnT only serves to hide that concept.  I LOVE VnT, and I want to still be able to use it, but that's because of my nature and education, not because it's good policy text.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A big difference
Could someone please explain to me what the difference is between "needs" and "requires", apart from one being shorter and simpler than the other?— S Marshall T/C 16:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * My opinion of course, but "needs" is syntactically weak in this context. A need is related to desirability, duty, and correctly used which it often isn't, to physiology and psychology of the human being, or I guess, any organism. A policy isn't an organism and doesn't need anything so "requires" is the more correct word in this context. "Requires" is as well, more definite, and more clearly defines. With out it the edges of the policy are blurred opening the door for misuse.(olive (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC))


 * "Requires" is legalistic in tone...  To demonstrate, think about the difference between "You are required to eat, or you will die" and "You need to eat, or you will die".  The first sentence is a command... the second is a warning.  The implication in the first that someone is forcing you to eat, and that the penalty for not eating will be death.  The implication in the second is that no one is forcing you to eat, but the consequence of not eating will be death. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh. "This policy requires that" grates on me: the subjunctive unnecessarily complicates the sentence and the whole is a wordy circumlocution.  We can surely do better, but I currently don't have the patience to go through the process involved in improving the language.— S Marshall  T/C 18:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So would "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and any quotation, requires attribution in the form of an inline citation." rather than "This policy requires that any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, be attributed in the form of an inline citation." satisfy? LeadSongDog come howl!  18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly improve! Any plain English version would be a step forward but my ideal phrasing would be as simple instructions ("Attribute all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, using an inline citation"). I've never understood why there would be an objection to that but it gets reverted when I put it in.— S Marshall T/C 18:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that part I understand. We try not to instruct editors that they have to do things. They are, after all, volunteers. Rather we describe what direction we think the encyclopedia article has to take. If the editor Alice puts an assertion in but doesn't cite it, that's still a good-faith contribution to be grateful for. Bob can mark it with cn, Chandra can find a reliable source and Diego can format the citation. It isn't the most efficient approach, but it is the way things usually work here. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get me started on that..:). Dreadstar  ☥   20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's why my simplification here included the word "please". :)  It was reverted on the basis that "please" makes compliance with the policy sound optional when it is in fact compulsory.  I remain of the opinion that the purpose of a policy is to give simple, easy-to-follow instructions.— S Marshall  T/C 20:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It weakens the policy, waters it down. Find wording that doesn't, or leave it be.  Dreadstar  ☥   20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, the language comes from WP:BURDEN, which does contain a requirement... we are intentionally telling editors: if you wish to add or keep an unsourced statement to an article, that is OK... but if it is challenged (or likely to be challenged), you  are the one who is required to supply a source for it (and not the editor(s) who challenge it).  Why?  Because we say so... it is an arbitrary "rule" that we have agreed on.   Blueboar (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe something in a following sentance that says if something isn't sourced it may be removed at any time and should not (we cannot say "cannot" because we cannot stop the info from being readded by any means other than a total article lockdown) be readded until it can be sourced. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's a requirement as Blueboar says, then why shouldn't we use the imperative? I go back to my earlier proposal that we simplify the sentence to say "Attribute all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, using an inline citation".— S Marshall T/C 09:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't agree the requirement that content be subject to verification is arbitrary. It is, so far as I can tell, an inescapable consequence of "anyone can edit" and "not fiction". But the imperative applies to the articles, not to the editors. No editor has to do anything, not even the few foundation officials who hold fiduciary duties. We have no mechanism to coerce people to even turn their computers on, let alone strike specific keys on their keyboards. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me try to explain this another way... There is a non-legalistic need for all material to be verifiable ... we state a legalistic requirement (for actual verification) when it comes to material that is challenged or likely to be challenged.  That requirement is: "If you wish to prevent such material from being removed, you are required to search for sources and provide a citation."  The penalty for non-compliance might be the summary removal of the material in question.
 * The lede should explain the general need for verifiability (of all material)... we can leave it for a later section (WP:BURDEN) to explain the requirement for verification (when the material is challenged or likely to be challenged). Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, do we have different ways of seeing this! "Penalty"? No, unless I'm wrongly invested in one version. "Compliance"? No, nor even "conformance". "You are required"? No, because anyone can do it and achieve the same thing. Try instead "Material that lacks the citations needed (or required, if you like) for verification may be summarily removed." LeadSongDog come howl!  06:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Only if we added a bit on re-adding the info without an inline citation. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  06:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was using "you" in its plural. No one who wants to remove the information is going to bother looking for sources... so the requirement to search for and provide citation does rest on all of  "you" (in the plural) who wish to keep it.  As for removal being a penalty... when it comes to arguments about keeping/deleting unsourced information in/from an article, editors are often wrongly invested in a particular version.  Such invested editors do see removal of the material as a "Penalty". They shouldn't, but they do.   The point of WP:BURDEN is to tell them: "the way you (in the plural) can avoid this by providing a source".
 * But that was not really the point I was trying to make... All I was really trying to say was that the language in question was crafted for a specific section (WP:BURDEN), and I don't think it translates well when moved into the lede.
 * I suppose it is really a question of what tone we should set in the various parts of the policy... To my mind, the lede should set a non-legalistic "tone"... it should use language that explains the need for verifiability.  We can set a more legalistic tone (and explain situations when there is a requirement for actual verification) later in the policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, then perhaps we're not so far apart after all. I agree that the tone should (so far as possible) be descriptive, not prescriptive. When we describe the need, though, let us focus upon the product, not the editors. Certainly anything that enables or encourages the adoption of an editwarring mentality is undesirable, and yes that includes legalistic language, but it also includes possesives such as the multi-pronged "your". (Sometimes I hate my mother-tongue!) I suppose BURDEN needs addressing in the same light: it would function better if it could preclude conflicts rather than resolve them. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The goal of BURDEN is to preclude conflicts... before we added BURDEN we had constent debates where one side said "prove this is so" and the other side said "no, you prove it isn't so". The community opted for saying "The editors who challenge do not need to prove the negative... those who wish to keep it must prove the positive"... that bit of history stated... what should (in my opinion) be added to BURDEN is something that says: "If something you added gets challenged, don't get upset and argue about it... it will take less time go on Google, find a source, and add it to the article than it would to argue.  Adding a source is quicker and much less stressful than arguing."  Now that would preclude conflicts. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One simple solution is to say that "Any material...must be attributed..." That's a statement of fact, not a command.
 * What makes a policy be descriptive is if it describes what we do. It is possible to describe actual practice while using strong words like must and do not.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That would only be true if consensus can override the requirement that content be verifiable. We're not describing practice with that, we are proscribing it.  Parts of Policy are descriptive and subject to consensus, parts are prescriptive non-negotiable.  This needs strong and clear wording.  Dreadstar  ☥   01:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you mean prescribing, not proscribing, but I'll take that as support for my view.— S Marshall T/C 01:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Prescribing is fine, but proscribing is the better word...it's not just 'long standing' it's more of a basic WP law. "to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful", acts that are proscribed by law :) Prescription works only under the definition that it's a rule (eg a 'regulating principle) Dreadstar ☥   01:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Dreadstar  ☥   01:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dreadstar, to proscribe verifiability would be the same as to "condemn or forbid" verifiability. We prescribe, i.e., "require" verifiability.
 * Additionally, the sole reason that verifiability is a "basic WP law" and a "requirement" is because the community has chosen to treat it as such. You will not find a WMF Board resolution that demands that the English Wikipedia follow this requirement, because this requirement was not handed down from on high.  The community's own consensus is what created this requirement in the first place.  If we-the-community were ever to lose our collective marbles, then we have the right and the power to end this requirement, just like we had the right and the power to create the requirement in the first place, and just like we have the right and the power to maintain the requirement today.
 * Finally, I have no idea how my proposed change to make the sentence read "...must be attributed..." is neither "strong" nor "clear". Perhaps the word must means something wishy-washy to you?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a version:

"All material included in Wikipedia must rise above the threshold for inclusion, which is verifiability, not truth. This means that the material's correctness has been verified by publication in a reliable source, and that whether editors believe the source to be correct is not relevant. While verifiability is needed for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion.

It must be possible to attribute all text in Wikipedia articles to an appropriate reliable source, in order to show that it is not original research. While it must be possible to attribute all material, in practice it is only necessary to attribute quotations and text which which has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Attribution must be in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.

This policy applies to all material in the mainspace without exception, and any material that requires but lacks a source may be removed. Unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.

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."

Here is the difference between the current and suggested. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 02:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar, will you please allow the policy to be edited. Thank you in advance for being co-operative and helpful in this.— S Marshall T/C 02:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Watering down the policy isn't appropriate. We should be clear and direct and we should state requirements as such.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  02:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. My proposed edit strengthens it.  It turns a statement ("This policy requires that...") into a direct instruction.— S Marshall  T/C 02:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree Marshall, your edit weakens the Policy. Dreadstar  ☥   02:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it did simplify it. The whole lead needs a good combing out like above, but it's so contentious that no one can edit.  Even an edit like what I did above, and Marshall's which didn't really change much meaning but did take out some of the vehemence.  "Policy" and "requires" and "must" give emphasis. But not strictly necessary... I wish we could just write it more smoothly.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  03:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I made my views on this obvious above. We shouldn't instruct if we can possibly avoid it. We should inform. But we should do it in simple language that all editors can understand. Even that annoying pre-teen know-it-all. The twisted language above defeats itself. Try out your favorite version here and see for yourself. LeadSongDog come howl!  03:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What about, "All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Some information [blah blah..give the 4 types here] must use inline citations. Material not meeting these standards may be removed with no additional reason required."? ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  03:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that we have to rely on this to force people who don't want to do things right to do them right, I think the legalistic tone is appropriate. These are absolute, non-negotiable requirements which you will meet if you want to edit Wikipedia, and don't bother to argue and don't complain when others use this policy. We shouldn't put it that way to editors on talk pages, usually, but the policy should leave no wiggle room even if it's just psychological. So let's inform people that this is how it is.  As to the twisted language, I agree, do you want to rewrite without maintaining the classic language (I retained it above).   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  03:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "This policy requires..." is strong, concise and sets that specific requirement off from the rest. It helps provide focus on one of the key, non-negotiable elements of this policy.  Dreadstar  ☥   03:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We cannot require anyone to put citations in and unless someone starts warring they are unlikely to get banned for not doing so. As to your last point, I think it should be made as clearly as possible with the concisest and simplest manner possible. I am also not a fan of VnT, but even if I were, I'd say if it would stay it would have to be used in a manner that kept it short and to the point and didn't require elabortation on what VnT meant. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  03:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the content that requires it, this policy puts editors on notice that if they don't meet the requirement their content may be removed. Dreadstar  ☥   03:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * But it requires elaboration from every proposal I've seen thus far. IMO even the current draft below is too verbose. My text proposal could remove imo most of the first 3 paragraphs and combine the lead into 2 paragraphs. Only the brief mention about BLP and it applying to the mainspace (which should be rephased to article mainspace since WP:V is mainspace for this talk page and it doesn't apply there) is all that would need to be added, plus that last paragraph. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  04:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You know you're welcome to edit below so we know exactly what you suggest. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  04:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:V is not in the Mainspace aka "Main Namespace", policy resides in Project Namespace aka "Wikipedia namespace". Nothing is simple.. :)  More info on namespaces can be found here:  Namespace.  Dreadstar  ☥   04:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Look at the actual sentence we're considering. "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." It's a completely unnecessary subjunctive circumlocution. You can express the same basic thought in dozens of other ways, almost all of which are shorter, more direct, less windy and less pompous, and I think if we can't improve on that sentence then we have absolutely no business at all calling ourselves "editors".  Here are some examples:-
 * "Attribute all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."
 * "Please attribute all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."
 * "You must attribute all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."
 * "Editors should attribute all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."
 * "All articles must attribute all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."


 * What do those all have in common? They're in plain English using the simple indicative or simple imperative, and they're all considerably less verbose.— S Marshall  T/C 10:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Articles don't attribute material: people do.
 * I believe that the passive actually works best for this issue: "All quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."  This is both strong and clear, and it avoids the worries some editors have about appearing to tell individual editors to add citations.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The passive is less than ideal but I'm just happy we've managed to get rid of "this policy requires that", so I'm tolerant of the current version. :-)— S Marshall  T/C 19:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Summing up several recent ideas
It seems we have a fairly solid local consensus for starting off with a definition... which would, at minimum, mean moving VnT to a later part of the lede. I also see some movement towards an agreement that we should keep the concept of VnT in the policy, but tweek the wording. Taking these two ideas together, I suggest something like:

Would something like this be a step in the right direction? If so, I would suggest that the second paragraph open with the caveat that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, while the third paragraph discuss the fact that, although every statement should be verifiable, not every statement needs to be verified with an inline citation (which gets us into the "challenged or likely to be challenged" concept.)  Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, let's not present VNT as an isolated idea!  It's slightly less poisonous with the qualifying clause "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true" after it.  If we're bound and determined to keep VNT in the lede despite the fact that most editors don't want that, then at least let's keep it with the qualifications and explanations firmly attached.  Even better, move it out of the first paragraph into a separate text box as Be Critical suggests.— S Marshall T/C 16:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * must or "required" instead of should... Its not a choice is it?


 * much of the misuse comes out of ignoring "threshhold" and what that means, so define that quickly.(olive (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC))


 * No problem with "must" rather than "should". As to defining "threshold"... I figured that saying "Do not add unverified material, even..." etc.  adequately defined "the threshold" beforehand. No? Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd say not clear or strong enough, and its a major loophole for abuse... what about "While verifiability is needed for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion." from the version in place now. And I would bold it actually, its a critical point....(olive (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Blueboar's proposal is a good step in the right direction because it starts the first paragraph by defining verifiability without the complication of threshold and VnT. Mentioning of threshold and VnT at the end is better than at the beginning because of the benefit of the preceding context. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm putting together a few drafts. I like Blueboar's pretty well, but I think its phrasing could be simpler, and also that VnT could use just a small explanation more:

I don't like having VnT in there at all: it is an artefact which could better be expressed as "Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors." But people are clinging to it in the belief that excluding it weakens the text et seq. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 17:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And another idea: if we had a clear community consensus on the idea that "Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors," would VnT seem so necessary to people? If we could form such a consensus and put that text in the nutshell, would VnT still seem necessary to them? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar's draft

 * Just so everyone can see my proposal in full context... here is how I would suggest rewriting the entire lede:


 * With the exception of the opening paragraph, this proposal is primarily just a reshuffling of existing language. I have tried to make as few changes as possible.  I know it does not resolve every issue... but I think it would resolve a lot of them.  As for the idea of removing VnT entirely... I don't think that will fly.  There are those that will instantly reject any proposal that removes it.  The only way to achieve consensus is to retain it in some form.  Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That version achieves an "Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading Gunning Fog index : 18.43" at this calculator. It is at least 6 years harder than it needs to be. LeadSongDog  come howl!  18:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps... but I am not trying for perfection, just improvement... so let me ask: is it easier to understand than what we currently have? Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure that the test means much. I ran "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas." and "Time flies like an arrow true and straight. Fruit flies like bananas." through that test (retuning 6.24 and 5.73 respectively). So it take the average American half a year of additional education before they can understand the shorter sentence! -- PBS (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not championing one metric in particular, they all have flaws. The oddity you spotted shows up the particular sensitivity of Gunning's metric to polysylabic word frequency. But they do help identify the difference between simple statements in plain language and the sort of convoluted obfuscation which, all too frequently, we see in the very policy statements that are created with the intention to direct the ongoing ameliorization of this collaborative endeavour to which we somewhat hypocritically apply the sobriquet "The encyclopedia anyone can edit". If it's too awkward to speedread, it's bad policy. We need to solve this.

I prefer your earlier version above with my changes  :o). It has more impact, and is less wordy. It progresses logically: an opening definition,  then the basic short summary verifiable, truth, threshold. The reader gets fed the whole thing in the first lines.  But thanks for your continued flexibility and efforts(olive (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Well of course you prefer the version with your changes, that's why you suggested them. :>) We all prefer our own wording selections.  The question is, would you oppose my proposal because it does not include your language? (I hope not). Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Gosh, actually no, I don't always prefer my own stuff. Heaven forbid. I see this as a kind of brain storming exercise in which everything possible is put on the table. In this case I probably do like my changes because I was trying for the most  succinct language  possible, and I do have real issues with language that might create loopholes. (olive (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

Suggest working on the first paragraph first, before going onto something else. The main task for the first paragraph is putting a clearer definition of verifiability first, like you did in the previous section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree... the problem was that I wanted to demonstrate how my proposal for the first paragraph fit into the larger lede section. I was concerned that people would misunderstand my intent, and think that I was trying to omit concepts that they consider important.  A major rewrite of the first paragraph, (which is what I am proposing, and what I do want people to focus on) will of necessity mean some minor rewriting and reorganization of the paragraphs that follow. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The changes to the first paragraph should be able to stand by themselves in this case. The criticisms with which you are concerned  can be addressed by improving your original first paragraph version. I think your goal there is having a clear definition  of verifiability first, and having a good context for mentioning threshold and VnT. Here's a change to your original version up there that may work. It removes the second sentence since it is covered in the second paragraph of the present policy version. I restored the last two sentences of the current policy version. Further changes that you want would be better made in a subsequent proposal.


 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

These all look good. One quibble with Blueboar's would be that the "Sky is blue" section appears to create an exception. We're getting into another bigger area where the policy is somewhat self-conflicting and needs work. The question is what does and should the policy say about citing the sky is blue.


 * 1) Current: Under the spirit/intent of "challenged or likely to be challenged" it should never need citation.   But under other parts of wp:ver a a POV warrior from the "Wish the sky were green society"  could just say "it's unsourced, and I get to delete it if it isn't"
 * 2) What I propose is that they would just also need to state (not argue, just state) a concern, like "I'm not so sure about that sky color and it's unsourced, please get it sourced". In other words, complies with the true spirit and intent of "challenged or likely to be challenged" criteria.
 * 3) I think that one sentence Blueboar's proposal inadvertently goes a step further, it appears to provide a route for someone to argue "I think that its obviously true, so i don't need to source it" . I'd recommend tweaking that one sentence to avoid that.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This really depends on what point in the editing process we are talking about. I was focusing on when someone initially adds material to an article... at this point it is absolutely OK for them to take the position that "this statement is so easily sourced that I don't need to bother actually sourcing it".  You, on the other hand, are focusing on a later point... the point when a challenge has been issued.  Once a challenge has been issued, those who wish to keep the material are faced with a choice... they can either engage in debate and attempt to convince the challenger that his/her challenge is unreasonable, or they can mutter "what an asshole" to themselves, shrug their shoulders, and provide a source - even though they don't think a source is needed.  To my mind, the latter reaction is preferred... as it is almost always faster, easier and less stressful on all concerned.  It usually takes all of thirty seconds to locate and slap in a source ... but it can take days of argument and growing contention to convince the challenger that they are being unreasonable. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind your draft, but I think it's wordy. Just as an example, "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. " -> This policy applies to all material in the mainspace."  We don't have to blather on just for emphasis (yes I know this is from the current lead).  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree... but several people have suggested that we will be more likely to achieve a consensus if we make as few changes to the existing language as possible... I think this is good advice. So, since the "blather" was in the existing version, I kept it in my version.  We can always discuss trimming the "blather" at a later time. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternately, it's the blather that is less controversial to trim, which is what I've been doing at the article. "This policy requires that"  > "must" in this edit, and also I got to trim "directly supports," since it's now in the first definition sentence.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow! I didn't see agreement for all of the changes. Did I miss something? (olive (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Can you point to any actual changes to the policy? If not, are you opposed to better writing?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

These changes were under discussion and suddenly they are in the article. I'm surprised. Better writing (as a general principle not in reference to this discussion) is always a matter of opinion. subjective rather than objective.(olive (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC))
 * Becritical, For months the discussion has been about better writing, not about changing policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Better writing is what they teach you in English classes, subjectivity is for advanced poetry classes :P I hope it is clearer and simpler without having changed the meaning, and I hope the policy is no less emphatic.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well if you want better writing, drop the unverifiable thing. Bolding just these two letters makes it look like we're instructing morons. I noticed the "toxic trio" has been moved down a peg in the lede. What's next? Let me guess... first unbolding it, then moving it out of the lede altogether. Doc   talk  21:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Like freaking clockwork with the next part of the "change". This is really cute, y'all, subverting consensus like this. In a very subtle manner...? Doc   talk  11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem: now it says: "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". In other words, first we say that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, then we go on to say that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability.  I see these developments as an improvement so I'm reluctant to revert, but as currently written our policy is oxymoronic.  Can we please replace "the threshold" with "the first criterion"?— S Marshall  T/C 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the object was to make some of the edits which don't change either the emphasis or meaning of the policy, but leave the controversial parts. But I disagree about VnT: Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, but the minimum requirement for anything to be in an article is verifiability.  That's not contradictory.  Now we can work on some better phrasing for VnT.  You know my suggestion.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand why people have such difficulty with the word "threshold"... Imagine a walled castle named "Inclusion in Wikipedia"... To enter this castle you must pass through a series of gates (ie thresholds)... As you approach the castle, the very first gate you come to is a very large and impressive gate marked "Verifiability". You definitely can not get into the castle without passing through it ... however, just beyond this gate are other gates (other thresholds).  You also have to pass through them if you want to enter the castle. However, there is no point in worrying about them until you are passed through the gate of Verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What you just described is not what the sentence says. It only refers to "The threshold", not to any other subsequent thresholds. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't want someone to come along and revert all the good changes we made, so leave it for a while. After the current changes are digested a bit, we can change it to something that's easier to understand, "Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors," or some other phrasing.  The trick will be to edit in a way that is easy to digest and non-confrontational, and eliminating VnT at this juncture is a good way to get people not to consider our changes.  As would be making any real change in emphasis or content.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest "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" > "This policy applies to all material in the mainspace." The "and I mean it, Stanley" stuff is a bit much. So if no one minds I'll change it accordingly. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have "Articles must also comply with the copyright policy"? Does this article need to say that? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 01:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was essentially put in with this diff. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was put in because of me. I persisted in demanding it until editors saw the need. Without going too much into the history, let's just say that I did so after a certain very senior editor whom I need not name was found to have implemented serial copyright violations in a very large number of articles. Basically he'd built virtually his entire corpus of articles via close paraphrasing. When he was challenged about it, WP:V was his excuse. That editor has now very thoroughly vanished, but the experience taught us that we need to explain that you can follow WP:V over a cliff. There's a balance to be struck between saying what the sources say, and not saying what the sources say too closely.— S Marshall T/C 12:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Eventually
I recently added "eventually" to a sentence and it was reverted, so that the sentence is now,
 * "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed."

This statement seems too strong because it gives editors the right to immediately remove any material that doesn't have a citation. In principle, an editor could slash and burn through Wikipedia using this sentence as justification. With "eventually", it gives editors some time to find a source before the material is deleted. I think that was what was intended for this part of policy. Here's what the sentence would look like with "eventually".
 * "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may eventually be removed."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * May is already an indeterminate, conditional word with no timeframe. Adding a second indeterminate, conditional word with no timeframe doesn't significantly change the meaning of the sentence.  Also, the phrase "requires a citation" is also subject to interpretation, not every single statement made at Wikipedia requires a direct citation, only material which is likely to be challenged.  If someone goes willy-nilly and removes all uncited statements from Wikipedia, without regard for context or without taking time to discuss before removing when called on it, then they are clearly editing disruptively, per WP:POINT and could find themselves in an unhappy place soon enough.  Considering the primacy of WP:CONSENSUS over all else, one cannot merely use policy and policy alone to make one's edits instantly "right".  In shorter terms, if someone did what you are describing, they're going to get blocked, regardless of what this page says.  -- Jayron  32  01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "May is already an indeterminate, conditional word with no timeframe." — That's why someone who wants to immediately delete, can do so.
 * However, your other points are OK so overall I agree with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no need to add "eventually". It is not wrong to delete unsourced material immediately (indeed sometimes is it best to do so)... nor is it wrong to wait (indeed sometimes it is best to wait forever and not delete).  The decision as to when (or whether) to delete is a judgement call, made based on the nature of the unsourced material. Blueboar (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it ought to say "should be removed." But be at peace: I tried to slash and burn through Wikipedia once, but I determined that it wouldn't be allowed for long. And that was only removing text that had been marked as unsourced for over a year.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  02:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You should not remove material that you (using your best judgment) honestly believe to be verifi able . WP:There is no deadline for providing inline citations behind apparently verifiable non-BLP information.  Your duty to keep good (if incomplete) material under WP:PRESERVE is just as strong as your duty to remove bad material under BLP or COPYVIO.
 * That said, I don't support including the word eventually here, because "immediately" is the order of the day for unsourced contentious matter about BLPs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent insufficiently explained revert of edit re minimum and "Verifiability, not truth"
A recent edit was reverted. The only explanations were in the edit summary which said, "BRD", and a message in an above section of this talk page. Neither message explained why the editor didn't think the edit was an improvement. (Note, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes.")

I made the edit because 1) I thought that the word "minimum" should be highlighted and because the italics would connect with the thought re "guarantee" that was also italicized in the previous sentence, and 2) the word  verifiability was the important concept to follow and "not truth" was a subordinate idea that supports the concept of verifiability. Here's what the sentence looked like after my edit, along with the preceding sentence which was unchanged.
 * All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The minimum 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.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Because we had an RfC about this. Because we are not going to subvert in little increments what that RfC was "really" about. The "toxic trio". Slowly kick it out of the way through this renewed round of consensus editing? Not quite that easily. Doc   talk  12:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the large RFC, it was not regarding this font change. So far you have not provided a reason why this edit is not an improvement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it is against the spirit of the RfC decision. Because this is always why this issue continues. VnT. Toying with it in terms of bolding/unbolding have proved unsuccessful in the past. It was no mere "font change" because you unbolded 2/3rds of the trio. Kinda changes the emphasis, don'tcha think? I tried it - there's no compromise. Doc   talk  12:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You still haven't stated why it isn't an improvement, whereas I stated in the above why it was. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let others chime in on that. Just don't think that semantics will hide the fact that some editors cannot accept the fact that VnT, as it is, has no consensus support for removal from the lede. Doc   talk  12:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not being removed from the lead. The recent edits by various editors have been careful about that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally see no point of unbolding only "not truth", leaving verifiability bolded. By adding the new lead sentence (good idea), there is no longer a requirement to bold the word "verifiability" here because it is the title of the policy. So the only reason it is bolded now is to make the point "VnT". Either leave all three bolded, or unbold all three, I don't care. In view of avoiding drama it should probably be the former. Yoenit (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm frankly amazed that the recent very large-scale RFC at which 65% of editors wanted VNT out of the lede, is still being cited as a reason to keep VNT in the lede. This filibustering over technicalities to prevent us from implementing what a clear majority of editors want is disgraceful and thoroughly obstructive, and it's leading to a perpetual "under discussion" tag on the lede of a major policy page.  I do wish editors would be prepared to reach a good faith compromise such as the one Blueboar spent so much work on.— S Marshall  T/C 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 65% could agree with / live with a solution where it was taken out of the lead, to end this bickering. That doesn't mean that all 65% wanted it out of the lead, only that that option was acceptable. Supporting the RfC doesn't necessarily mean opposing the status quo or other solutions with VnT in the lead; just like some people supported the RfC as a minimal step in the right direction, others supported it as a maximal but acceptable step in the wrong direction for the sake of peace and consensus. Fram (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IIRC, about 65% in total supported the idea; some didn't think it went far enough in terms of improvement, some had qualified support, etc. BUT  and this is an important point  some of the opposers hadn't seemed to have cottoned onto the idea that what was being suggested was a change of wording, and not a change in the actual policy. Despite those misconceptions, a very clear majority supported, rather than opposed, what was suggested.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 15:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fram, surely you can't possibly endorse the use of that RFC as a justification for crystallising VNT in its current state?— S Marshall T/C 16:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we please not re-argue the RfC yet again. The simple facts are this: I proposed a change. A lot of people liked my proposal, but enough people disliked it that we can not say there was a consensus. That's fine. It does not mean we ignore the issues that prompted the proposal... It means is that we need to come up with a different proposal to resolve the issues... one that will gain consensus. Now, the only way to do this is to take into account what the various nay-sayers in the RFC had to say. Most of the nay-sayers expressed a strong desire to keep VNT in the lede, and listed my moving it out of the lede as their main reason for opposing. Thus, if we wish to gain a consensus, any new proposals need to keep VNT in the lede. To propose anything else simply continues the same debate, with the same results. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is a question we should directly ask as part of the RFC. What to do with VNT?  Three options (status quo, separate subsection/text box per Be Critical, remove entirely) with the specific understanding that the majority view will prevail.— S Marshall  T/C 17:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Won't work... the minority will simply say "consensus is not a majority vote" and continue to block any forward progress. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the minority should prevail over the majority indefinitely, and I don't think that will happen.— S Marshall T/C 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It how the system works. It encourages those on the extremes to compromise... to think in terms of "I can live with that" rather than "this is what I want". Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry... but can you tell me if you previously put up a list of alternate phrasings to VnT? Do we even know if there's a common interpretation of VnT?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  18:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The RFC replies show that there are two broad camps, but they are not mutually exclusive. There are those who take the pragmatic position that VnT is nothing but a stick with which to bludgeon POV-pushers and are anxious not to be disarmed, and those who take the philosophical position that Wikipedia editors can't know or divine the truth and need reliable sources to do that for them.  Some editors fit into both camps, although I think most are one or the other.— S Marshall  T/C 19:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wish that we could solve some of the smaller and less contentious problems without having to re-re-re-re-discuss "threshold" and "VNT".
 * For example, I strongly believe that the word attributable needs to be replaced by something like possible to attribute, because people are persistently misreading and misunderstanding this. This is one little change.  Nobody's actually objected to using smaller words here.  Nobody's ever said that we don't have a problem with sloppy readers thinking that -able means the same as -ed.  But we've had something like three sections on this small change so far, and we still have the problematic word in the lead—and we've gone back to fussing about other, completely unrelated phrases in completely separate paragraphs.
 * Please: can we just shut up about the VNT mess for a little while, and see about solving some of the potentially solvable problems?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're not allowed to discuss it, then we should replace "under discussion" with "contentious but deadlocked".— S Marshall T/C 20:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a possible way forward without editwarring the lede: find a phrasing in the policy body that works without offending anyone too much. See if it stands up for a few months. If it does, then we can change the lede to agree. If it doesn't, the next version might.LeadSongDog come howl!  20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no other minimum thresholds? What about WP:WEIGHT?
This is in regards to this edit. Unless I'm misunderstanding what BC is saying here, there are other thresholds. Information must also pass WP:WEIGHT. Just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean it belongs in an article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Threshold actually, means minimum, so we don't need to use the word minimum with threshold.

Before 'weight' can be considered per a source the source must past the verifiability test. Can the source be verified? Then if it can 'weight' comes into play.

I think there may be bigger issues to deal with than articles a and the, but adding my take on this point.(olive (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC))
 * We need to change something. At the moment the policy says "...verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability..." which (a) is an oxymoron, and (b) reeks of incoherent babble.— S Marshall  T/C 20:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, WEIGHT is the second threshold (: And you notice that even very knowledgeable, experienced and smart editors don't get VnT, that's why we really must replace it.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe "a requisite for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability"? Just my two cents. Doniago (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys are edit-warring over "The" versus "A"? WP:LAME. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ROTFL, I doubt anyone noticed it was an edit war. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

S Marshall, please don't mess it up for the rest of us by getting the page protected. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, some genius will probably do that. To my delight, I see that Unscintillating thinks there's only one threshold for inclusion, so our policy once again contains the immortal lines, "...verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability..."—and I think I'll leave it, because I'm starting to find it funny. :-)— S Marshall  T/C 00:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting how you can rewrite the rest of the lead completely and nobody seems to care, but touch that particular sentence in any way and shit hits the fan. Yoenit (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why we need to leave it alone till we come up with a better version we think will get consensus, or at least till the other changes have set a few weeks. Otherwise the thing will get totally reverted to how it was before.  That would suck   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, we can't leave it like it is. Hilarious though the current version may be, policies need to make sense.  If the Holy Sentence is untouchable, then we need to rewrite around it to get rid of that particular juxtaposition.— S Marshall  T/C 01:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, it's not our fault. The people who want it need to come explain exactly what it means to them, and then maybe we can paraphrase that.  But while it does have a literal meaning, people have different interpretations.  I for instance think it means beliefs, or should be "true or false."  Anyway, it's their responsibility, not ours.  Leave it for a while, maybe someone will complain and then you'll have something to point to.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Long experience has taught me they'll simply revert and ignore, Becritical.— S Marshall T/C 01:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well now that's disruption. Sry, but where is that RfC?  I just want to check if you guys offered some nice alternatives to VnT.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  02:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's in archive 53. We did not offer any alternatives to VnT because at the time, we weren't trying to remove it.  (It was a compromise proposal, you see.)  Editors expressed hostility to VnT despite that.— S Marshall  T/C 07:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There are other thresholds, even if they are not stated in any Wikipedia policy. For example, all contributions must comply with the law of the place where the servers are located. I don't think Wikipedia policy prohibits information that is considered secret by the US government, but that is a threshold nonetheless. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Threshold" is ambiguous here. It's common technical meaning is achieving the necessary numerical value of a single variable when discussing a single variable. Here it means A requirement for inclusion. An important requirement, but nevertheless only one of many. I think that it has stayed because people like the sound of it better than the alternatives, plus inertia, plus leaving it to other parts of the policy to clarify what this ambiguous phrase means. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC claims everything must have a cite
In Talk:Electrical engineering one editor claims that all material in every article must be supported by a citation, including well-known easy-to-verify material. Another editor does not claim this is required for all articles, but that it is required by FA criterion 1c. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources which are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information which has been challenged or which is likely to be challenged." And just going around challenging the obvious is disruption after a point.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  02:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Becritical has the core of it, but let me add two things: Referencing everything is indeed required by the Featured article criterion and secondely: if an editor challenges a few things which may seem obvious to you, you should just add references. Only when they go around leaving dozens of tags or challenging entire articles is it considered disruptive. Yoenit (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Challenging entire articles is not disruptive per se. There have been cases where articles have been written purely on primary sources and unreliable sources. Please read REDFLAG too. Anything challenged that is based purely on primary or questionable sources should be removed or provided reliable sources for verifying. Wifione  Message 11:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My advice... rise above "the rules". While citing "obvious" material may not be required, there is no reason that "obvious" material can't be cited. It may not be necessary to cite it, but it will not hurt the article to have unnecessary citations.  When some idiot challenges "obvious" material, it is usually much easier to just mutter "what an idiot" to yourself, cite the material, and end the debate.  After all, if something is truly well-known and easy-to-verify, then it should be simple to find a citation for it.  It only takes a few minutes to do a quick google search and slap in a citation... on the other hand it can take days (and a lot of anguish on everyone's part) to argue about "the rules" in an attempt to avoid doing so.   Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the OP on this page is not an accurate description of the RfC. (Whether the RfC is an accurate description of the real situation, I did not look into.)  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I only attempted to describe one aspect of the RfC. The RfC also contains allegations that the material in question is not at all obvious and thus requires a citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Ambiguity about the circularity wording.
There seems to be some ambiguity about the wording of the section wp:CIRCULAR and I propose to change the wording of one sentence in order to resolve the ambiguity. This is of course not a request to change a policy — just for a clarification of the current policy. Background - There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Wikipedia (and there was one archived before) about whether a section about Wikipedia can be added to the main space article Wikipedia, based on primary sources only. Some say yes, some say no, pointing to and quoting various parts of various policy statements. Currently the statement is worded as: I think that, depending on the actual philosophy behind wp:CIRCULAR, it would be a good idea to reword the above quoted statement either to: Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself, or to: Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may not be cited as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself. (Emphasis for clarity — not to be included). So, in order to avoid similar discussions, the policy statement would just need either 3 extra, or "4 extra and 2 less" words to become undisputably unambiguous. The important question is of course, what is actually meant here in wp:CIRCULAR, and then, can we have the policy unambiguously reflect that? - DVdm (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Oppose both, Both of them are a significant change to what the policy says now. Wikipedia is a primary source about itself, so its use falls under wp:PRIMARY. Thus there is no clear yes/no and it depends on the situation. Yoenit (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But the primary question is: what does the policy say now?. Before we know that, there's not much to oppose. Remember, this is not a request for change of policy. It is a request for clarification of policy, and only then —perhaps— one for change of formulation. - DVdm (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The current policy wording merely says Wikipedia can be used as a primary source in articles about itself. It does not say when and how it is appropriate to do so. When and how to use primary sources is described in wp:PRIMARY, not in this policy. Yoenit (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, wp:PRIMARY (in policy wp:NOR) says "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided," but wp:CIRCULAR (in policy wp:V) says: "Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself." These two policy statements clearly contradict each other. Is there some other super-policy that says that wp:NOR must take precedence over wp:V? - DVdm (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see those as conflicting. One says to avoid purely primary sourced material, the other says that primary sourced material should only be used with caution and should be cited. So, whey we must use WP as a source about WP, we should attribute with inline citation so that readers know they're seeing a self-referential statement. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is indeed only a conflict if Yoenit's view is valid. That's why I think it might be a very good idea to reword that circularity sentence to explicitly allow for this for non-conflicting interpretatrion. - DVdm (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: WP:PRIMARY: Secondary and tertiary sources says:
 * "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. ... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source."


 * This sentence says clearly that the purpose of secondary and tertiary sources is to avoid novel interpretations, analyses, synthetic claims and so forth.
 * Nonetheless, WP:Primary in its present form is used with a sound bite mentality that refuses to look at the purpose of the policy and sees this policy in toto as :
 * "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source"


 * with the emphasis upon all . Any attempt to point out the purpose of WP:Primary is countered by blind repetition of the above statement as if it were the sum-total of the policy.


 * To counter this sound bite approach, the policy needs another sound bite that can be used as a dash of common sense in application of the policy.


 * An example of misuse of WP:Primary is to oppose the simple statement:
 * "Another activity of Administrators is the granting of permissions to contributors to augment their editing capabilities."


 * The link to WP itself is perfectly adequate support. It is simply ridiculous to request a secondary source. If a secondary source could be found, it would simply do the same thing: quote WP.


 * Nonetheless, WP:Primary is used to deny the placing of WP:Formal organization in main space despite the fact that this article is nothing but a repository for facts like that quoted above. Brews ohare (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps two common examples of the use of primary sources in wikipedia will help with that "soundbite mentality"
 * Plot summaries are usually based solely on primary sources, but we allow them provided the article contains other content as well.
 * The history section of a company article, which are often sourced from the company website.
 * For each of these you should be able to find tens of thousands of examples. Yoenit (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yoenit:I am unclear about the purpose of your remark: are you suggesting that to counter misapplication of WP:Primary these examples could be pointed out to suggest that an incorrect use of policy is being made? I'd guess that strategy would be unlikely to prevail; it certainly would be less direct than using a brief excerpt from WP:V or WP:Primary if these policies could be phrased to include a simple statement about the use of primary sources. Brews ohare (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: In an even more restrictive manner than WP:Primary, WP:V states WP:VF#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves:
 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves...so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources"


 * This last is one of a list of five provisions that must be met, and in my opinion should be deleted inasmuch as the previous four requirements suffice. The purpose of the policy is:
 * "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source"


 * It seems highly improbable that a statement like:
 * "Another activity of Administrators is the granting of permissions to contributors to augment their editing capabilities."


 * is likely to be challenged, but if it were, surely the link to WP suffices to establish that this is the way WP works. Any secondary source would simply quote WP in exactly this manner, referring to exactly this page.


 * Nonetheless, the last of the five provisions as quoted above would not allow an informational article about WP consisting primarily of statements like this because they refer solely to WP. Brews ohare (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of factual information on itself that does not include matters of assessment or interpretation, such as in articles about itself.
 * Observation: Perhaps the rephrasing could include some restrictions:
 * I am concerned that articles on WP could be used that are somewhat conjectural or have opinions not widely shared. Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well... suppose an article about Wikipedia is discussing how some articles in Wikipedia contain conjectural statements or highlight opinions not widely shared... in this situation, it might be helpful to give the reader an example of some articles that do so. In this situation, the Wikipedia articles being used as examples should be cited (but carefully... as these articles are primary sources for this information, and thus subject to all the restrictions we place on the use of primary material). Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: We could distinguish between articles describing the facts about how WP operates and articles evaluating aspects of WP such as the adequacy of its organization, events occurring on WP, accuracy of its content, and so forth. Perhaps it is necessary to use a more elaborate statement. Is this what you are driving at?  Or, are you suggesting the status quo is best, despite its ambiguity and present misuse? Brews ohare (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any ambiguity... It is a matter of policy scope... what you are concerned about is valid, but it falls under the scope of WP:NOR, not WP:V. WP:NOR makes it clear that we should not use a primary source to to support a statement of analysis or evaluation (no matter what the topic is).  I see no need for this policy to repeat that statement. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: My remarks above are intended to clarify when WP:OR or WP:V or WP:Primary do not apply, as the main problem with these policies is that they are being applied without sufficient care to suppress material that they in fact do not apply to. This misapplication could be avoided by clearer explanation in these policies, which is what the above proposals aim for.
 * So what is being discussed is just what falls "under the scope" of these policies. What matters is cleaning them up so they are applied where they should apply. Brews ohare (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to citing Wikipedia articles in Wikipeida, WP:Primary and WP:NOR always apply. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But apparently WP:CIRCULAR, which is part of WP:V (a policy!), and which also says someting about citing Wikipedia articles in Wikipedia, seems not to apply. Don't you find that odd? Shouldn't that somehow be made clear? - DVdm (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@DVdm, I think the problem is that you don't understand wp:PRIMARY. You seem to interpret wp:PRIMARY as "primary sources are never allowed", but this is not correct (or atleast not how it is applied in practice, as my examples above show). The core of the whole issue is probably the "Material purely based on" sentence. This is usually interpreted to refer to articles as a whole, rather than to individual sections or sentences. (again, see the examples I posted). With this interpretation there is no conflict between wp:PRIMARY and wp:CIRCULAR. Yoenit (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, let's change the wording in a way that nobody can misunderstand it, and that no examples must be given to those who might misunderstand it. That is what this RFC is about - it was not about taking Brews' section on board in some article. Here, in this context I don't really care if it is or isn't. This is just about changing a few words in some sentence in a policy, in order to avoid it being misunderstood. You opposed to my proposals because it depends on the situation. So, which formulation would you propose? - DVdm (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yoenit: It appears that you object to changing the statements of the policy because they work fine if they are properly interpreted. The difficulty with the policies is not the policies but their statements, which are often misapplied. You might argue that such differences of interpretation are easily resolved on a Talk page, but in fact that is not the case. The policies are simply reiterated in simplistic fashion and the purpose or intent of the policies is felt to be too much hairsplitting and an attempt to circumvent their "real' meaning. Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * wp:CIRCULAR is a section about the issue of circular references. The only reason why it includes the final sentence (which we have been discussing) is to prevent people from thinking that using wikipedia as a source for articles about itself a form of circular referencing. If I would have to rewrite that sentence, keeping exactly the same meaning, it would be something along the lines of: Using information from wikipedia to write something on itself, such as in articles about itself, is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is use of wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources. This makes it very clear wp:CIRCULAR does not allow/disallow anything, it just points out the situation is not circular referencing and directs you to wp:PRIMARY. Yoenit (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (I have replaced the xt-template with an xt2 to show line breaks — hope you don't mind.)
 * If that is indeed the policy, then this would already be a very good step forward, away from ambiguity. I could certainly live with it. - DVdm (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would this resolve the issue: Citing a Wikipedia article to support a descriptive statement about Wikipedia itself, is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is the use of wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources. Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. - DVdm (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One nitpick: "Wikipedia articles" is too narrow. What we are most likely to cite are pages from Wp:Project namespace or special pages like Special:Statistics, not articles. I would suggest changing it to "Wikipedia pages" or just "Wikipedia". Yoenit (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

These proposed changes look sensible and clarify the circularity issues by placing WP:Primary in command. With the dubious assumption that WP:Primary is clearly stated, that solves the problem for WP:V.

Another point remains, however, that WP:V states WP:VF#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves:
 * "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves...so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources"

This is a somewhat separate issue (it overlaps, if one considers WP as a "questionable source", which I believe is the case), but I'd like to invite comment that this provision should be amended. There are already four other listed requirements that cover every situation I can imagine, and this particular provision seems unduly restrictive. For instance, it means that an overview article that uses WP policy pages to outline the factual nature of WP policies (without assessing them, just reporting them) cannot be written in Main space. Why not? It seems to me that any objections to such an article are well covered by the previous four restrictions. Brews ohare (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it does not mean that an overview article that uses WP policy pages to outline the factual nature of WP policies (without assessing them, just reporting them) cannot be written in Main space. It means that the policy pages in question (the primary source) should not be the only sources we use. We also need to find secondary sources that discuss the nature of Wikipedia policies (the topic of the article).  We can use the primary source to support certain specific types of statements ... but majority of the article needs to be based on secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: Yes, I understand that is the policy. Here is an example where the policy does not work: an article is written that is intended to guide a WP contributor through the various policies WP:V, WP:Primary, and so forth. It does so by identifying links to the policies and providing enough of their content to guide the reader to the appropriate policy page. Such an article cannot be posted on Main space because of the requirement that most of the article has to be from secondary sources.
 * Needless to say, no such secondary source will cover this matter; and if it did, it would do so by following exactly the same methodology: quoting WP policy pages. I'd suggest that not only will it be hard to find such secondary sources, but it is a stupid exercise to hunt for a source that will simply quote WP.
 * The purpose of policy is to avoid injection of unsupported opinion or bias into an article. No purpose is served by requiring secondary sources under the circumstances I describe. Brews ohare (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The same situation will arise with other examples: for instance, one can outline the plot of an opera and refer only to the libretto of the opera. That would mean a primary source was used throughout, and the article could not be published that way. Instead you would have to quote some secondary source like Opera Synopses, which in this case is feasible, but still a stupid restriction. Brews ohare (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Brews, something intended to "guide a WP contributor through the various policies" would not be appropriate material for a Main-space article. It would be more appropriate in Wiki-space (ie with a "WP:" prefix) - presented as an Essay, or Guideline. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: The example is not the point. The opera plot is another example. More can be found. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the opera... first and foremost, the article would need to establish that the opera was considered notable enough for a stand alone article (per our WP:notability guidelines).... To do this, we need to establish that someone external to Wikipedia has noticed and discussed the opera in some depth. For that, we need reliable secondary sources.  The article should be based primarily on these other sources.
 * An article about an opera needs to contain more than just an outline of the opera's plot. It is fine to have a section of the article that outlines the plot... and it is appropriate for that section to be based mostly on the primary source - the opera itself (although, even here we have to be careful... any statements about the plot using the opera itself as the source must be purely descriptive in nature. Any analysis or evaluation of the plot would require a secondary source.)  But the article as a whole needs to be based primarily on secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar: I may unkindly say that your approach to this matter is to say simply that no possible example exists where this policy should not apply. The example of an opera is just an example to illustrate the general principle that articles based only upon primary sources can be perfectly acceptable, although this policy doesn't allow it. Your argument that such an article would be disqualified on other grounds (as not notable) hardly excuses WP:V for providing invalid grounds.

Your approach to revision of WP:V or WP:Primary is to say that any case where these policies are inadequate can be disqualified using other policies, so WP:V or WP:Primary work just fine. I don't think that is a correct approach. WP:V should provide a valid consideration and not depend on other policies running interception. Brews ohare (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You miss my point... You are arguing that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves...so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources" is unduly restrictive. You extend this by giving an example of an article based purely on primary source material, and say this is perfectly acceptable... I am disagreeing with that, and pointing out that an article that just uses primary sources is not perfectly acceptable.  It would have problems with multiple policies and guidelines... including this one. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar: OK, so if we want to write an article explaining what the state requirements are for becoming DA in each state, and refer only to the state legislation on the matter, a primary source from each state, that article violates WP:V and WP:Primary because it uses only primary sources. Or, ... need I go on? You say other policies will serve to save WP:V and WP:Primary from getting egg on their faces by providing substantial reasons. That is no way to write a policy, based upon the hope that some other policy will strike first and save WP:V and WP:Primary from embarrassment. If other polices will filter out many articles based upon primary sources for good reasons, well bravo, let them do it, but let's have WP:V and WP:Primary make sense by themselves.
 * The way around this silliness is to change these two policies to make exceptions for these obvious cases. Sensible reasons for restrictions are already listed as the previous four conditions listed here. The fifth restriction needs rewriting. Brews ohare (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To go back to the opera example, an article containing nothing more than a plot outline is a violation of wp:PLOT. It would also fail to establish notability, which requires independent secondary sources (unless a specific sub-guideline for operas exists, which I am not aware of). Yoenit(talk ) 22:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yoenit: The point here is not whether the example can be disqualified somewhere else. The point is that the disqualification based strictly upon WP:V or WP:Primary is stupid in such cases, and these policies should stand on their own feet. Brews ohare (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words... you dislike the policy. You want to be able to write articles based purely on primary sources, and think the policy should change to allow this.  Ain't going to happen.  The requirement that articles be based primarily on secondary sources has a strong consensus.  It is a provision that is included in multiple policies and guidelines. You are entitled to think this provision is silly or stupid, but the community disagrees with you.  Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe what Yoenit is saying, and what I believe, is that policies should be properly organized; requirements based on verifiability should be in the verifiability, requirements based on notability should be in the notability policy, etc. When I am writing an article about electrical wiring, I would be quite annoyed if I found my copy of the National Electrical Code had some pages from the American Heritage Dictionary bound into it, even though I wouldn't want to write such an article without both resources at hand. Your statement to Brews ohare that "you want to be able to write articles based purely on primary sources" does not follow from what that editor wrote; that editor did not advocate changing the notability policy, and such a change would be necessary before writing articles based purely on primary sources. I accuse you (perhaps in jest) of wanting the verifiability policy to become one policy to rule them all. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to speculate about motivations. However, Yoenit and Blueboar will not address the issue as framed, namely modification of provision 5 in this section. In Blueboar's last attempt, instead of suggesting how the examples I've provided fail to add to WP and so should be excluded, he simply says any revision "ain't going to happen". Blueboar's previous attempts are based upon, to paraphrase, even if WP:V makes no sense, so what? Some other policy will cover the gaffe. Yoenit takes the same tack.
 * Actually facing the issues is not happening here. It is a common occurrence in discussions of this kind where the notion of discussion is replaced by debate. Brews ohare (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't that I am not facing the issue... it's that I don't see an "issue" to face.  Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar: Let me identify the issue: Articles that would be of value to WP but are based entirely upon primary sources can be imagined, but because of WP:VF - provision 5 in WP:V, as things now stand such articles can be rejected, and will be so rejected.

So far, you have refused to accept that any such article can be imagined that would be of value, and have suggested that, although this provision of WP:V may not be well conceived, it does not matter because other policies will eliminate any such article on other grounds anyway. In your opinion, because no such article can possibly survive other policies, it is not necessary to change WP:VF - provision 5, even though it makes no sense in some cases.

Further, you are so persuaded of your opinion that to further your view you will attack any proposed example on any other grounds you can think of, based upon whatever other policies or considerations, however desperate, rather than consider revision of WP:VF - provision 5. Brews ohare (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Outcome
Following consensus in the above comments section, I have replaced the closing sentence in wp:CIRCULAR with Citing Wikipedia to support a descriptive statement about Wikipedia itself, is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is the use of Wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources. Thanks all —specially Yoenit— for your constructive comments. Should this RFC be somehow "formally closed", or does this somehow "happen all by itself", so to speak? - DVdm (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Replacement phrasing for Verifiability not truth
It's necessary to replace VnT with a phrase which is 1) easy to interpret and 2) cannot be misinterpreted.

Let's pick the best one:


 * 1) Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors. --Becritical
 * 2) Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are convinced that the material in question is 100% true. --Blueboar
 * 3) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, whether readers can check that sources in Wikipedia have already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true --Amadscientist
 * 4) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that readers must be able to check that material on Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, and that what an editor thinks is true is not a criteria for inclusion --olive
 * 5) It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it --S Marshall
 * x


 * 2a - Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are sure that the material in question is true - The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not truth. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Support/oppose
I think #3 needs a few tweaks, but generally I like it. I guess this is my #6 (I wasn't sure about just plugging it in there)...

A requisite for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability- whether readers can confirm that information in Wikipedia has been published by a reliable source, not whether editors believe unsourced material is true.

I'd also weakly support #4, but I believe that "thinks" should be changed to "believes". I don't believe it's as grammatically sound as #6. Doniago (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose#5 Dewey defeats Truman never happened, it is not true information, but it is verifiable, and no one questions it being in the encyclopedia. Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how #5 suggests that information doesn't have to be true...but then, it's not one of my preferred wordings in any case. Doniago (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I don't understand your example at all. To quote from the article lede: ""Dewey Defeats Truman" was a famously inaccurate banner headline". Are you saying that is not true information? Are you stating this whole article is hoax ("never happened")? If we only cared about what was verifiable, shouldn't we update United States presidential election, 1948 with the information that Dewey did indeed win? Yoenit (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unscintillating the contents of the Dewey defeats Truman article is certainly true. A statement "Dewey Beat Truman" is sourcable but false.  So all are sourcable, but editors should be free to leave out the latter statement because it is false. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK... Consider the following statement: "In 1876, Tilden beat Hayes"... the truth of falsity of this statement depends on context. If placed in a paragraph discussing the popular vote, the statement is true.  If placed in a paragraph discussing the electoral college tally, or the final result of the election, it is false.  Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I like #3, #5 and "#6" the best. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * These are all good, but none has the word 'Verifiability' bolded first up. NewbyG  ( talk) 20:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are positive that it is true
I added the above language to the lede, but it was reverted (which is fine). So let's discuss. I hope I am correct in assuming that no one thinks this statement is wrong (ie that we should be able to add unverifiable material)... The edit summary for the revert was "Redundant with next sentence." (the next sentence is the current VNT - untouched). My reply to that is: so what? I don't think there is anything wrong with redundancy... indeed if it helps to clarify the policy, redundancy can be a very good thing. I think this is the case here. I believe my addition helps clarify the next sentence (VNT)... making it clearer that VNT relates to the addition of unverifiable material ... and that VNT does not relate to the retention or removal of verifiable material - at all. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I support the inclusion and I think it is not redundant but a precision of the intended and correct meaning of VNT.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I support it as well, and would just as soon have it replace VNT as being less subject to misinterpretation. Mangoe (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we know replacing VNT would be controversial (and unlikely to gain consensus). So, let's set that idea to the side. My intent was to clarify VNT, not to replace it. Blueboar (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not a good idea to be redundant, which is not a good idea. Also, repeating the same thing twice is like telling people what you've already told them again.  This is a problem because intelligent readers have limited patience, and unintelligent readers have a limited attention span, so repetition benefits neither.  This means that nobody benefits from repetition, which is something nobody benefits from.— S Marshall  T/C 16:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redundancy is bad writing most of the time, especially in a situation like this where we are writing by committee, and where any particular rhetorical style won't be appropriate for everyone. We need to either replace VnT or leave things alone.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, where any particular rhetorical style won't be appropriate for everyone, is the reason why restating things can be a good thing, provided the writing is very clear, and crisp, and un-un-un-boring. NewbyG  ( talk) 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, leave it alone. It's not broken, so why are we trying to fix it?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Partly because its full meaning is not contained in the words (or isn't easily extracted), and without the full meaning, it doesn't belong in the lead. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which part do you think is missing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of restating VNT is to try to eliminate some of the possible misreadings. I approve of that but I don't think redundancy is the best way of doing it— S Marshall  T/C 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Truth" is a large concept which assumes a relation to falsity, and is a matter of belief. So it's missing, at least, falsity and belief.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no need to get meta with this policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then remove VnT. VnT is already meta, in a huge way.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Redundancy is not always a bad thing, not ‘’always’’ a bad thing, in fact it can be a good thing in a short piece of advice in fact, if both redundancies are short, and also they appear uncluttered with unclear statements and too many other examples of poor writing. I kinda like the particular phrase which was edited in, but haven’t looked at the project page yet to see how it would have fitted. NewbyG  ( talk) 18:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You can see how the added sentence would fit into the page - by looking at this diff. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just reverted its addition as lead sentence, which makes absolutely no sense. The sentence you inserted uses the concept "unverifiable", before you have even defined what verifiability is. This policy should start with defining that, as it does now. Yoenit (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is so. But verifiability is defined a couple of bytes further on, if you look at the diff, or the edit page. cheers NewbyG  ( talk) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Yoenit... the policy should define verifiability first... then talk about unverifiablility. Blueboar (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. The policy does not define verifiability. like in a dictionary. We invent a definition, within this paragraph, in fact. We invented the concept of Verify, for Wikipedia, and it lasts while consensus holds, which is for ever, pretty much. But consensus on any particular form of words, in the lede only lasts while there is consensus for the words, like currently. cheers NewbyG  ( talk) 02:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This page should be protected again. This is a core content policy page, not some random article. This is total nonsense with the BRD and the same players ceaselessly pursuing the same goals. Lock it down before more edit wars occur. This needs to go to ArbCom at this rate. Doc   talk  06:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Protection? Same players? Vandalism? What planet have I arrived at here? cheers, NewbyG  ( talk) 06:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "What planet have I arrived at here?" — Earth. Suggest troubleshooting your spacecraft's navigation system. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A sense of humour. What a refreshing change. The page has a couple of clunkers on it, but nothing murderous, until you change one word. I wold not have edited again, because the page looks pretty good. Just that silly bit about, however if, or then umm whatever that I excised briefly with the edit which was reverted. Can even hold my nose and pretend not to have to look at VNT. I like Earth, but its a personal preference. cheers NewbyG  ( talk) 07:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the party! This page has had to be protected in the not-so-distant past because of... several reasons. When you compare the edit histories of the other core content policies, you will see that WP:V is apparently so much more comparatively broken that it requires far more edits to improve it. I can't say for sure why that is, and it is out there for anyone's interpretation. Cheers... Doc   talk  06:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) WP:CIV is a core policy, so's WP:CON NewbyG  ( talk) 07:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the five pillars - the core content policies. There's only three of them. But... hmmm. It's only a freakin' essay? Oh, boy. Doc   talk  07:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Newbyguesses, On the policy page you made three substantive edits in three hours that were reverted. Suggest you first discuss your proposed edits on this talk page with other editors and get their feedback to avoid this. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the tip. Every bit helps. I have been following multiple discussions, on multiple talk pages, and making positive contributions, I know you have been too, Bob K. Today is the first time I have edited this policy page though, the regulars seem very keen. Umm, have you been watching this talk page, with its sometimes rather disjointed discussions, and far too much personalization of issues? Sure wont be a surprise to an experienced editor I know. Also, how often incivility turns up on WT:CIV, and bold editing is discouraged on WP:CON? Actually I am inclined to now believe that gamesmanship may have led to the current protection at WP:CONSENSUS?!?, (read it for oneself at WT:CON) but incivility results in inferior editing, there too. All here working together to further the same goal at this project, though. cheers NewbyG  ( talk) 08:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to do an experiment, since BRD seems to be in play. I'm going to remove the "under discussion" tag. I'm going to see how long it takes to get reverted, who reverts it, and why. And I'm certainly not going to revert them. This is to test the validity of BRD continuing here rather than other steps. Doc   talk  08:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A most useful edit that would be. I am temporarily laying off BRD though, and I'm on 0RR. Let someone else revert, that's how we play it, not that its a game, but some honour and self-restraint is required when someone changes the holy writ, just stand back and give the great unwashed a go, (not vandalism of course). The map is not the territory, and the words on the page are NOT the policy, as holy writ, certainly. This is a wiki, or it was when I first edited. NewbyG  ( talk) 08:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. There will probably be topic bans doled out before this is over. Jus' sayin'. It could happen. Doc   talk  11:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So now you have dropped to the level of making veiled threats to people who revert you? Downright pathetic. Yoenit (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have 1500+ freaking contributions to this talk page alone over two years. Do not call me pathetic. Do your homework. Doc   talk  11:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What tone do we use now?
One thing we haven’t discussed for a while, but do really need to discuss, is tone of writing. As in, will we consistently use second person, and directive. You should or passive voice formulations, or 'descriptive language', or mix-and-match or otherwise? We recently edited out most second person type references, which IMO was a good idea, it seems icky to me, but maybe the planets have moved or something and it is time to be using more personalized language for a spell, I dunno NewbyG  ( talk) 18:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do leave a note on my talk page when these discussions conclude; don't want to miss the ending.(after 2014, I'll be more active on meta, so it'll be nice if you could ping me there)  Wifione  Message 11:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We're going back to the RfC stage. We may need to lock the page again and revert all of this new mini-concensus' changes. If it's going to be attrition: so be it. It's a shame, really. Compromise is a two-way street, and that's all there is to it. Doc   talk  11:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Restating VNT
to get us back on track (ie trying to find language that might actually gain consensus)... how would people feel about: I think this retains the intent of VNT, but it shifts the subject of the sentence to "Verifiability" (which is, after all, the topic of this policy) and away from "the threshold for inclusion")
 * Verifiability is considered the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth

If people like this, I would also suggest combining it with my previous proposal of "do not add unverifiable material, even if you are positive that the material is true". I could see doing this in two ways: As I see it, the parenthetical (in either formulation) helps to clarify the intent of VNT. It clarifies for the reader that VNT is intended to address a specific issue: the addition of unverifiable material that an editor thinks is true... and clarifies that VNT is NOT ADDRESSING the issue of removing verifiable material that might be untrue (the policy can address that second issue as well, if needed... but should do so separately from VNT.) Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are positive that the material is true (Verifiability is considered the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth)
 * or
 * 1) Verifiability is considered the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth (Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are positive that the material is true)
 * I still don't see a problem that this is meant to address. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem I am trying to address is that the current formulation of "The threshold for inclusion is VNT" focuses debates on the question of "Should this be included?" (which is not really the point of this policy)... swapping it to "V is the threshold of inclusion, NT" shifts the focus to the more appropriate question of "Is this verifiable?" (which is what this policy is all about).
 * And combining this swapped version with "Do not add unverifiable material, even if true" we clarify that VNT is talking about not adding unverifiable material, and does not apply to discussions about the removal of verifiable material (for those discussions, we look to other policies). Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A quibble about syntax: it scans as though we were saying "inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth", as though we were distinguishing between inclusion in truth and inclusion in Wikipedia, rather than between truth and verifiability. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... isn't this corrected by the comma?. (I freely admit that the rules of English grammar is not my strong point, and will bow to others who are better at them than I am). My point is that I think we should make "verifiability" the subject of the sentence, with  "threshold" as the direct object (the current version it the other way).  My reasoning is what I stated above. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To my eyes, the comma doesn't solve it. Of course it's clear to me what you mean, but I'm taking the approach that we're writing this for anyone to understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but, you could solve it by: "Verifiability, not truth, is considered... " etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that. Or  perhaps... "Do not add unverifiable material to Wikipedia, even if you are positive that it is true (Verifiability is considered the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth is not.)"  Blueboar (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is a productive line of thought, because changing the subject of the sentence achieves a useful shift of emphasis. If you make the information being added into the subject of the sentence, then you get:- "Information must be verifiable before it can be added to Wikipedia".  I like this a lot.— S Marshall  T/C 19:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, Tryptofish, what if you replaced inclusion with content? I don't think it would change the underlying meaning, but would further remove emphasis on the question of inclusion (to help focus on "Is this verifiable?" by covering both content-to-be and content-that-is). Verifiability is considered the threshold for content in Wikipedia, not truth. If you did this, you might want to replace threshold with something that makes more sense, like basis or something better. Verifiability is considered the basis for content in Wikipedia, not truth. Just my $0.02.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 19:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to quash good ideas... but the fewer words we change in one gulp, the more likely it will be that our suggestions will be accepted. My initial reaction to both ideas is that they are worth considering (in fact, I really like the idea of saying "Information must be verifiable before it can be added to Wikipedia") ... but both ideas add a second layer of change on top of the change I am suggesting.  That increases the potential for rejection.  Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair point, makes sense to me.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 20:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'd be fine with any of those variations. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * great... in that case, I will wait a bit to see if someone has a strong objection to the direction we are headed here... I will think about the various suggested tweaks and then make a BOLD edit sometime tomorrow or the next day. I would suggest we then let it sit for a day or two (to give potential objectors a chance to see it and revert), and if it sticks we can continue to propose further changes that will either improve or completely ruin the policy. :>)  I can definitely see a light, but whether it is the end of the tunnel or yet another on-coming freight train is unclear.  Blueboar (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm betting on the train. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Verifiability is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth: do not add unverifiable material, even if you are positive that the material is true.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to further moves or removal of VnT. Normally, the opposite of "verifiability" is "unverifiable", but in the world of Wikipedia, the major opponent or opposite of 'verifiable' is indeed 'truth'.  In my view, it's necessary to say straight up front that "the threshold for inclusion in WP, is Verifiability, not Truth".  It's akin to the great battle in life between what is verifiable (the scientific view) and what is Truth, (the faith view). If we obfuscate this great trite WP truth with unclear and vague wording, then the POV-Pushers and Truth-sayers will have a much stronger argument to add their own personal truths.  Let me add that we just had a major RFC with hundreds of participants that failed to remove or move this, so why suddenly would a small, local 'consensus' be able to override that?  Dreadstar  ☥   22:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case, a proposal in talk might be a better idea than BRD. But I don't think what we are discussing here does any of that. Am I missing something? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's all the manner in which this is being done, "baby steps" to remove VnT, stated clearly by several of those that support this next change. I don't see a problem with Vnt as it is stated now, I just see a small group of editors who will not leave it alone for a second.  I'm just making clear my stand on how far this can go without sparking major objections.  This change may be ok, but the intent of several here is to keep going until it's out.  That's unacceptable to me at least. And maybe I've overreacted to this last change proposal, it's clear that most of the proposers were trying to find a suitable compromise, you being one of them.  So my apologies if my message seemed a bit...well...strident....just thought I'd throw my views out there.  :) Dreadstar  ☥   23:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also ask that if this change goes through, then the 'under discussion' tag should be removed, it's been holding the policy in some kind of limbo long enough. Dreadstar  ☥   23:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to interject an objection here... Dreadstar, please stop assuming that people have some sort of agenda. I am actually a very strong supporter of VNT, so I am absolutely NOT encouraging the removal of VNT.  I am suggesting a restatement of VNT using the same language but in a different order. Blueboar (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Really??? Could have fooled me.  Oh, BTW, I'm still looking for someone to articulate a real problem that this change is supposed to solve and how it will solve it.  For some reason, I can't get a straight answer.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would just note, what you describe as the great battle in life between what is verifiable (the scientific view) and what is Truth, (the faith view) is a mischaracterization of the VNT, although I do understand your point. Science and faith are still two approaches to truth, demonstrated by the fact that scientists and faithful disagree on truth value despite evidence/lack thereof. Verifiability, at least in the context of VNT, is about "prior publication" (by reliable third party) rather than "validation." Remember, this is verifiability, not validity. The distinction is important, because there are many times where we need to write content that is verifiable (published), but may be invalid/untrue, for example in contexts where we must characterize 9/11 truthers' claims, etc. Above all, the policy needs to communicate that Wikipedia is not trying to communicate truths to readers, rather that Wikipedia is trying to paint the landscape of what the reliable literature states. From there, readers are at liberty to decide what does or doesn't convince them of truth. So, while editors shouldn't be in the business of Truth-saying and POV-pushing, we also don't want an encyclopedia where editors ignore inaccuracies in otherwise reliable sources or demand overzealous verification. I at least credit both side of the VNT debate with a genuine interest in striking and protecting this important balance. That at least a few people on each side are open to Blueboar's new suggestion implies discussing it is certainly worthwhile.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, that's exactly the conflict, between what is verifiable and what is not; in both worlds. Two approaches to truth generally lead to conflict, as it often does between Science and Faith, perhaps one day the two will become one.  Then we'll all be Asgardians and much better off... :) (oh, wait, that was 'science and magic', my bad!)  "Truth" is entirely subjective, what is verifiable is not.  As far as the 'two approaches', tell it to Galileo.  Dreadstar  ☥   00:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's the basic disconnect. Do you really believe that truth is entirely subjective?  Do you believe it's always subjective, or can there be objective truth?  Cos my position is that:- (1) In some cases, there's an objective truth; and (2) Whether something's objectively true affects how you present it.  (Compare an article about a genuine animal, such as gorilla, with our article about a cryptid, such as bigfoot.  Gorilla uses simple declarative sentences, whereas bigfoot uses reported speech and hedge-words such as "purportedly" and "allegedly" to indicate that its content may not be true.)  And I think the idea that there's no such thing as objective truth, or the idea that Wikipedians can't tell the difference between truth and falsehood, is of more benefit to POV pushers than to good faith editors.— S Marshall  T/C 00:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In the context of faith versus verifiability, yes indeed I believe that. Verify to me that Bigfoot exists and I'll verify to you that gorillas exist; we'll see who gets punked on that one.  Language doesn't come into the equation at all.    Dreadstar  ☥   00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I still disagree Dreadstar, and I think you are not using the same meaning of verifiability that the rest of the debaters are. WP:V uses verifiable in the sense that, a reader should be able to verify that content has been previously published in a reliable source by a third party, which has nothing to do with science vs. faith. I agree that individuals' perceptions of truth can vary such that they are subjective (a separate issue from objective truth), and that what is verifiable is not. You however, seem to be saying that verifiable means "correct" (indeed, dictionary definitions for "verify" mean "to prove truth/to ascertain truth"), but WP:V does not use the term in such a way. For example, something needn't be accurate to be verifiable (untrue nonsense is published all the time). Something needn't be verifiable to be accurate (but does generally need to be verifiable to exist as Wikipedia content). You seem to, just as I do, give more personal credence to scientific evidence; but this isn't about whether claims are verifiably correct, but whether claims are verifiably published elsewhere (for example, scientific consensus holds that creationism is untrue, but we can still verify that it is believed true, taught, and written about, to the degree that we have an article on the subject). So, the science vs. faith issue of what's evidenced vs. what's perceived as true is not at issue here, and is transcended by VNT. The issue is that we need a way to compromise the policy text such that VNT issues don't ignore accuracy when it does matter (including nonsense just because it's published somewhere, or excluding suitable content just because it isn't published somewhere).  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 01:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we have some kind of basic misunderstanding John, nothing I've said indicates that just because something is verifiable it's 'true'; or 'accurate', it's merely verifiable. Reliable sources determine the content of this project, not what editors think is true.  The only "accuracy" or "truth" in verifiable, sourced material is that the verifiabilty itself is true and accurate.  Verifiablity is the threshold, not 'truth'.  I think I've been very clear on that and have no way indicated that just because something is verifiable makes it true...it merely makes it verifiable.  Faith is inherently unverifiable, but not necesarily untrue.   Dreadstar  ☥   01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can repeat the above a few more times if you like, but I won't be getting off-track into a philosophical discussion regarding Truth, Faith and Verifiability again, it's too easily taken and spun into what it's not by editors like Marshall below. Talk about conflation....sheesh..  Dreadstar  ☥   01:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm genuinely nonplussed. I don't really know how to deal with someone who's trying to write an encyclopaedia but doesn't believe there's any such thing as truth.  I find that a bit scary.— S Marshall  T/C 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot know that we have the truth by science or revelation. So it's better to say that there may be a truth, but we cannot know it.  Or perhaps we can know it, but not know that we know.  But certainly, encyclopedias are not vehicles for truth, but for human understanding.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, go ahead and be 'nonplussed', my contention is that reliable sources generate the content of this project, not what editors think is true. Skew someone else's wording, not mine.  Dreadstar  ☥   01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't it you who's skewing my wording? I mean, it's not as if I've ever claimed that the content of this project ought to be based on anything other than reliable sources, have I?  And yes, I'm genuinely nonplussed—and, yes, a bit scared—by this attitude.  I'm pretty far from being a religious man, but I always found the Bible bit where Herod goes "What is truth?" and washes his hands rather sinister.  My position is that encyclopaedia writers are educators and there's something worrying about an educator who isn't basically out there to tell the truth. And in most cases, there is such a thing as the truth.  I'm here to tell you that creationism is false and evolution is true, despite the rubbish that purportedly "reliable sources" have printed to the contrary, and despite any "academic experts" that creationists can pull up to support their claims.  I'm also here to tell you that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, and those who claimed it never happened are just weird cranks, and I don't care about any rubbish to the contrary that's appeared in print.  Not every case is clear cut, of course, but those two are excellent examples of what I'm talking about when I say there is such a thing as a truth and we can tell it on Wikipedia.  I expect you to respond to this by saying that some sources are more reliable than others, but before I continue please feel free to list any other objections you might have to what I'm saying.— S Marshall  T/C 09:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The moon landing conspiracy example is particularly good - are there many hits for VNT allowing WP:FRINGE stuff cited in the talk page archive? I'm not going to do your job for you, but concrete examples of the widespread misinterpretation of VNT need to be put forth. Doc   talk  09:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Before I list examples, Doc, can you assure me that when I do produce examples, you will change your mind and support VNT's removal?— S Marshall T/C 12:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would never agree to support anything before sufficient evidence is presented to actually convince me that I should support it. But please list the examples, because they can only strengthen your argument. The evidence needs to be there. I've written a few reports since I've been here, and I know what is needed for truly convincing evidence. Take your time! Cheers :> Doc   talk  12:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we've been on this merry-go-round so many times before that North8000 wrote an essay about it nine months ago. You can read his essay here.  I'll tell you how this will go.  First you will pretend that the onus probandi is on me.  It isn't, as I've pointed out above.  The onus probandi is on those making the positive claim, so properly it's for your side to produce diffs that show that VNT is the only possible phrasing, but nobody on your side has ever been prepared to do that.  For the sake of argument let's pretend for the moment that it's my job to produce proof on demand. What always happens is that I produce something unequivocal that shows someone (a) adding a falsehood to the encyclopaedia, (b) being corrected on the talk page, (c) citing VNT to keep their version in the encyclopaedia, and (d) citing VNT to prevent the correction from being added.  (I can do this with ease because I've done it several times now.)  Then, once I've produced this evidence, someone on your side says something like "is that the best you can do?" and begins to quibble it or find some ludicrous trumped-up basis on which to pretend that it doesn't count.  So I produce something else, and they quibble that too.  And so it goes on, until that person finally disengages and then someone else comes along and folds their arms and sits there smugly demanding that I produce my evidence. It's a cycle.  I'm afraid that the process is labour-intensive enough that I do require your specific assurance that you will not behave in this way before I'm prepared to engage with you on it.  I trust that you're prepared to provide this?— S Marshall  T/C 14:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In a sandbox, or off-wiki, assemble a convincing evidence page. That would be more than one example at a time - a bunch of them. Submit it when you feel it's readable, then improve on it after it's up. The onus really is on you to sway consensus to eliminate VNT, as you must know that or it would already be gone. I know from the RfC that many expressed hatred for VNT; but I don't see any of them discussing it here at all. Convince the "pro-VNT-er's" with evidence why it must be removed to protect WP. I cannot guarantee how I will "behave" based on that evidence. Doc   talk  05:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hans Adler assembled a convincing evidence page months ago. (You won't find it, he's had everything in his userspace deleted, but this is far from a new issue.)  But you won't submit any evidence in support of your position.  Nobody on your side of the debate ever has.  Very long experience tells me that if I go through and re-create Hans Adler's user page to show you my evidence, nobody on your side will change their mind, because this is like politics or religion: you'll see the evidence but interpret it in your own way.  When I show you editors insisting on inserting material that's been shown to be false and specifically citing VNT in support of their actions, what you will see is a problem editor, not a problem with VNT. Because your starting point is a rather touching faith in VNT.  But equally, if you show me editors with a history of being disruptive and then suddenly being convinced to change their ways when someone points them to VNT, what I'll see is an editor managing to look past the retarded way VNT is phrased and see the concept as if it had been expressed properly.  Because my starting point is that VNT is the worst possible way of expressing the basic idea.  Likewise, if I try to improve VNT, you will see me as "weakening" it to the benefit of disruptive POV-pushers, when my intention is to fix it to remove misunderstanding.  I can't improve VNT, not because editors agree with you (they clearly don't) but because you enjoy a first-mover advantage.  But equally you'll never get rid of the "disputed" tag on it, because there are too many editors who don't like it and think it's crap.  As I've said several times before, the only way to resolve this dispute will be to put it to a simple majority vote.— S Marshall  T/C 08:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not even one diff. Not one? Your wish to not revert this edit for the sake of compromise was respected. If any editor chooses to revert this one, it should be one of the many, many others besides you. Doc   talk  09:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And, of course, it was. I hope you've learned something.  You have, as expected, produced no diffs in support of your position either.  I will provide evidence if you do.  I will also provide evidence to respond to anyone who will say to me that they have a good faith intention to review their position on the basis of that evidence.  I won't provide it to those who're rather obviously entrenched in their current position and are using it as a rhetorical trick.— S Marshall  T/C 12:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict. My main concern (and that of, I think, many) is eliminating the (what 95% would call) misinterpretations. Getting " "Not truth" in this policy means that truth is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement" added somewhere would, as a compromise, resolve that. Otherwise, I've not seen it addressed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just pulled a couple of pithy phrases from the wall of text above. They follow, that is verifiable.

"Information must be verifiable before it can be added to Wikipedia". I like this

(S Marshall)

Verifiability, at least in the context of VNT, is about "prior publication" (by reliable third party) rather than "validation." Remember, this is verifiability, not validity. The distinction is important,

(John Shandy)

I'm genuinely nonplussed. I don't really know how to deal with someone who's trying to write an encyclopaedia but doesn't believe there's any such thing as truth

(S Marshall)

Well, these are verifiable. Whether they are valid, is a matter for personal reflection. At this late stage of the discussion, my 'personal' reflections are not of import, I believe. cheers NewbyG  ( talk) 11:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What exactly is the latest proposed "compromise", the above thread is confusing and I see several variations. Dreadstar  ☥   23:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary moon landing break, two basic variations being proposed
Well, I see two basic variations being proposed.
 * 1) Make verifiability the subject of the sentence. Any variation of "Verifiability is considered the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth (Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are positive that the material is true)" would come here.
 * 2) Make information the subject of the sentence. Any variation of "Information must be verifiable before it can be added to Wikipedia" would come here.  If you wanted to get "truth" into it, then it would read something like: "Information must be verifiable before it can be added to Wikipedia.  It doesn't matter whether you believe information is true.  It must still be verifiable before you can add it".

I do like (2), which solves both the problems with VNT that I've been pointing out for the last 18 months.— S Marshall T/C 00:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I still prefer "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Which is what I've been pointing out for the last 18 months.  And, to be honest, I prefer it to be in the beginning of the lede, where it was, but I was hoping the latest changes would end this debate.  It hasn't and I'm wondering if we shouldn't go back to that until the Community has had a chance to find consensus for all these changes to this Policy.  Dreadstar  ☥   00:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Blueboar: I meant, what real world problem are you trying to address? This seems to be a solution in search of a problem.  IOW, which articles do you think will be improved by changing this policy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh... real world? I am trying to address Hunger, Poverty and Social Injustice. Blueboar (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, real world Wikipedia articles. I assume that you're not really saying that Hunger, Poverty and Social injustice will be improved by this change, so how about you provide some real world Wikipedia articles that you think will be improved by changing this policy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll add my objections too. I don't see any improvements here and I don't see the purpose of any of these suggestions, except to remove the phrase "verifiabilty, not truth". Note that the objection to VnT in the past was the "not truth" part, which n[one of these suggestions address. The present version of policy seems to have gained support from both sides of the VnT issue because it first defines verifiability, and then the VnT sentence is retained in the first paragraph in a way where it has a preceding context that makes it more clear. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * my proposal has two purposes... 1) to indicate that VNT is talking about the addition of unsourced material (don't... even if it IS true) and 2) shift the sentence from being a statement about the Include-ability of material to being a statement about Verifiability (so that people ask "Is the material in question verifiable" rather than "Is the material include-able"). It is NOT my purpose to remove VNT. (I strongly support VNT) Blueboar (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I support using the phrase V not T, and I support it in the opening paragraph. I liked the fact that the phrase was immediate, because it gains impact by opening the policy, but was willing to compromise with a definition to open the policy instead. I feel discussion has been creeping towards removing V not T altogether, which I don't support, neither the "creep" nor the removal.(olive (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Blueboar, re (1), the sentence already says that; re (2) the rest of the paragraph already says that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It has been noted that the objection to VnT in the past was the "not truth" part, but, ask the philosophers there is no such thing as truth to be discerned. From that, not truth is as well a meaningless concept, and thus well-suited to appear in a policy page lede section. Though, perhaps, towards the bottom of the paragraph? NewbyG  ( talk) 11:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just, to clarify, if I may; a more nuanced view might be that 1> Yes, there may very well be *true propositions* relating to *true conditions* in an observable *external reality* 2> we may be able to *know* such truths 3> but, we may be in the position, when distinguishing propositions, that we are still unsure whether we can validly say that we are *sure* that we know what we know corresponds to such *truth*. (Shades of Donald Rumsfeld, begone.) Ah, the bitter consolations of Philosophy!
 * But it really aint as bad as all that. Furthermore, the word *truth* has a much more colloquial usage, for everyday conversational purposes, and it is this colloquial usage which is foregrounded in the phrase VnT. That is proper, and may indeed be the most compelling way of making a pithy and striking explanation of the requirements which we consider important in furthering the *Pedia*, cheers NewbyG  ( talk) 20:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting back on track - draft

 * Could we please get back to discussing the language I originally suggested, which (taking into account some of the comments) is:
 * Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are positive that the material is true (Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia)
 * Please note that this does not remove VNT. Thank you. Blueboar (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of draft

 * Now that we are 'all back on track'and got with the program, where do we report for duty, thank you? Oh, good draft directly above. where does it go on the project page? NewbyG  ( talk) 16:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar. Some language has impact some doesn't. This has impact, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth, this doesn't, "Verifiability', not truth, is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia) There are linguistic reasons for that which I could analyze per my background and education but I doubt anyone cares about that. Suffice it to say that in my mind the end product of the draft you are proposing, for me, is that is the text sounds weak. One obvious compromise is to leave what we have now in place. Adding an opening to the policy with a definition is a compromise. Moving the original V not T down in the paragraph is a compromise. Why are we still compromising? (olive (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Because some people continue to have concerns. The goal is to reach a version that everyone - on all sides of the Great VNT Debate - can live with. That's how consensus building is supposed to work. The consensus version lies somewhere between "VNT is Holy Writ" and "Kill it, Kill it, Die, Die, Die" - we just need to find the right language.
 * With that in mind... Could you expand on your objection a bit more... I need to understand why you think my draft sounds week. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We is good. Thank you. WP:TPG BTW- Sometimes, it is a fruitful exercise to at least consider posting to a talk page without recourse to the perpendicular pronoun, nor possessive case pronouns. Passive ought not always to be considered passive-agressive. cheers NewbyG  ( talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Writing style is an issue here, not just trying to preserve what seems to be fundamental meaning.There are lots of ways to write the same phrase and the meaning will be more or less intact. However what seems to be ignored is that meaning will have more or less impact depending on how its conveyed. The vehicle matters. I suspect that's why the phrase V not T is being protected by some editors me included. While I can't speak for anyone else, I think the most recent draft conveys meaning but downplays it.(olive (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC))
 * OK... fair enough... one of my goals with this draft was to shift the subject of the sentence, making the sentence be more about verifiability (the topic of the policy) and less about "include-ability" (not the topic of the policy). Could this account for the "downplaying" you detect?  Blueboar (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You want high impact olive? Then why not really high impact?  "It does not matter whether material added to Wikipedia is true or false, only whether it is verifiable." If you want impact, why settle for VnT?  VnT, it seems to me, is only a way of making the above less understandable, so that those who object philosophically don't put up too much of a fuss.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the point is we don't want to lessen the impact of what's currently stated, right now it's still very clear and concise. The new wording fuzzes the edges of it, it almost reads backwards - I think due to what Olive is pointing out about the writing style and structure of the draft; it needs to do what the current version does...define Verifiability.  Dreadstar  ☥   19:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But that's the problem... current version doesn't define Verifiability... it currently defines the threshold for inclusion. ("The dog is black, not white" says something about the dog... not the color black).  We want it to be a statement about verifiability, but it isn't.  It is a statement about inclusion.  My draft is an attempt to fix that. Blueboar (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing a problem with current wording, it strongly and clearly makes the statement that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability (the policy, the act, the concept), not truth. If it defines the threshold for inclusion as verifiability, I'm not seeing a problem with that either.  This is the WP version of a definition (more of an explanation, actually) of one of our core policies, not the OED version.  I see that Olive did a much better explanation than I did of her meaning below.  Some very smart analysis in there, too bad it got blown past.  Dreadstar  ☥   17:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what we need is a philosophical discussion of the entire meaning of VnT. I think I understand it, as meaning that reliable sources, not the beliefs of editors, is the only thing that may influence whether we include or exclude material.  Blueboar says that's even harder to understand than VnT.  I'm not sure how other people understand VnT.  I certainly think they do not understand it the same way I do... some of the proposals I've seen take out the overall meaning about belief.  Maybe if we had a common statement of what VnT is supposed to mean, we'd know how to restate it.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The original intent was to make it clear to editors that "but its true" is not a valid reply to "prove it". Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So doesn't that make VnT lame? Surely, "it's false" is just as bad an argument as "it's true."  Why are we not making that clear?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, let me amend what I just said... VNT started as part of NOR, and was exported to this page at some point. The original original intent was to reinforce the statement in WP:NOR about "If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to debut your discovery" (or words to that effect).  So, it was originally a way to say "we don't care whether your discovery is true, cite a source that talks about it".  It changed its meaning when it was exported. Blueboar (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, very much like evolution, and like evolution, you end up with less-than-ideal solutions simply because you aren't dealing with intelligent design and therefore can only put together pre-existing parts. Why don't we do a little intelligent design here, which means we first decide exactly what it is that needs to be said?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) Putting the first sentence in context, about nine-tenths of the project page is fine. It is just that no one has been able to come up with a credible sentence that begins withe word verifiability. NewbyG ( talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Blueboar's request (my opinion of course):


 * This policy is not about verifiability. This policy is about the liminal point at which content goes from being unacceptable content to being acceptable content and can be first considered for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and that point is the very  threshold of inclusion for content. We then define and name that threshold as verifiability and that content as verifiable. Verfifbailty is the name we give to this threshold,  and once we have named the subject matter or topic we can use that name to: name the policy and to describe further what we are talking about.That's why the opening sentence of this policy should read, the treshold for inclusion is something-verifiabilty and not something else-truth.. The next step is then to explain further the two words we have further introduced-verifiable and truth. Truth in this context means that which the editor believes to be accurate not believes to be truth in some pilosophical sense. This is why I would say Blueboar's draft which reverses the original phrase sounds awkward. It attempts to define verifiabilty when in fact verifiable is actually part of the defintion. The more we attempt to take apart the phrase, threshold is verifiability not truth with out realizing that what we are defining is the threshold for content, the more the real meaning of what we are doing here gets lost in language and seems watered down and hidden. Not truth, in actuality refers to all of the other policies which will come into  play to support content inclusion once it has passed the initial test for inclusion. An editor who believes content is accurate may employ all kinds of other methods to try and  to make sure that content is included, synthesizing, weighting it beyond its importance, and so on.

Revision as of 23:27, 7 February 2012 (edit) (undo) Littleolive oil (talk | contribs)
 * Threshold... what the policy is about and means the very first point at which content can be considered for inclusion.
 * Content must be verified in RS=VERIFIABLE
 * Truth=Accuracy, but the accuracy must be verifiable, that is, sourced or content cannot be included
 * Verifiability= the policy name for this threshold process of checking content for inclusion in the encyclopedia.


 * "This policy is not about verifiability." WOW... Olive, that is an interesting comment to make about a policy that is entitled WP:Verifiability... My initial reaction was to just dismiss it as being obviously ridiculous... but, on second though, I think it deserves a second look...   Here is my (more considered) reaction...  I think there is a need for a policy to deal with questions about inclusion/exclusion... however, it does not exist.  The closest we come to having one is WP:V (because verifiability is at least a threshold for inclusion, if not the threshold)... and so you (and others, perhaps even me) are mentally coat racking your desire for such a policy onto WP:V.  May I suggest that what we really should do is to create: WP:The threshold for inclusion (call it WP:TFI) - so that WP:V can get back to being about what it should be about - explaining verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think everyone would agree to that, and throw in moving VnT out of the V lead, if only WP:The threshold for inclusion is given the status of policy. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about language and how its used. Policies are not actions. They are words to describe actions editors take in editing. Verifiability is not an action nor is verifiable. The action and this is hugely general that has been delineated in the search to create accurate articles is that the editors must find, that's an action, sources which come out of  reliable sources. We are talking in inclusive language, that is at what point can content be included. That point is the threshold for inclusion, and those sources and content which reach that threshold are named verifiable sources and the policy which describes the process of finding and describing verifiable sources is called the verifiability policy. I was discussing the opening paragraph and attempting to explain why reversing the V not Truth phrase is awkward sounding, and that is because, verifiability and truth describe the subject threshold, a word that is synonymous with the minimum point all of our sources must pass to be considered for inclusion. Not truth excludes, verifiability means inclusion. Everything is contained in that opening phrase in seed form. Then there is an entire page to expand the phrase. I'm talking about linguistics and language here suggesting that delineating words into what they do and are, might make this process easier, but I see that won't be the case. That said I don't think the phrase V not T should be removed, but I am one editor. (olive (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC))
 * (ec)I would agree that the current wording of the lede, of the current version of the project page, contains everything in seed form. Also because, verifiability and truth currently describe the subject threshold ... Not truth excludes, verifiability means include. So, two issues. We keep the seed going, it's been there in the policy for long, long. And, we discuss separately, or try to decide if 1> this policy about verifiability 2> this policy is about inclusion, and only inclusion 3> do we want both those ideas fused here 4> or is there another place which deals with inclusion more profitably as a single topic. Oh, that's 4 issues. But I am only one editor. cheers Also, reliable sources is the bedrock of an encyclopedia. So, edits are an action yes, and sources come out of reliable sources. NewbyG  ( talk) 03:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And again we disagree... I do not think the purpose of Policy pages is to "describe actions editors take in editing". I think the purpose of Policy pages is to "explain the broad concepts and principles that govern the project".  In this case, what is being explained is the concept of Verifiability: what it means, why we think it is important, and how the concept is put into practice.
 * I am going to take a guess here (correct me if I am wrong)... I suspect that you think of Policies as being "The Rules" that should be "Enforsed", rather than "Statements of intent and consensus" which should be "Applied". Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Statements of intent and consensus" which should be "Applied". NewbyG ( talk) 03:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (add) By "Applied" I mean that we first of all don’t discover that we need some guidelines till after some actions have been taken by editors editing articles. Then we write down the procedures that were observed to work, to be helpful, and warn against those actions, those edits, which were seen to be unhelpful, so as not to waste time. It starts with action, editing, an edit. The guidelines come next, and are just words on a page.
 * But that is why we warn editors not to edit war. Because it has been done before, and acting that way doesn’t work.  So we warn people in a guideline. Please do not edit war. Please do not revert 3 times. That is the guideline, and if anyone can think of better words to say it, they act. They take an action, they edit the guideline page. And so on  NewbyG  ( talk) 04:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Blueboar: Not in the least. Policies in a theoretical sense grew out of a need to explain and guide the actions of editors in a collaborative environment. The actions came first, that is editors edit. If editors had known how create excellent articles instinctively, we'd never have had to guide them. I don't think of policies as being statements of intent either. The action came first, the guidance second. The system for guidance needed to be named, described for anyone to understand follow-policies and guidelines with their various names came into being. They are never stable because they guide action and action by definition changes and moves with time and the actors involved.(olive (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Well, this version was where we started from. It seems to bear out the guidance-followed-practice history. LeadSongDog come howl!  04:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sub-discussion/linking
This short phrase or draft of 25 words, would there be any hyperlinks to any polpage or other?
 * Answer my own question, then. Just one - Wikipedia - linked to Wikipedia, if needed there.  NewbyG  ( talk) 14:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First, please don't insert section breaks into other people's comments and posts. As to your question... I don't think we need any links (I definitely don't think we should link Wikipedia - we generally don't link to articles in policy space, and anyone reading the policy already knows what Wikipedia is, so there is no need.) Blueboar (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * First, We can and do link to articles, thank you, and WP:TPG, use headers or sub-headers, read about it here. Umm, please don't just shout at people to get back on track, keep discussions focused. NewbyG  ( talk) 16:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Second, and it would have been better to have said this first, that in order to make proposals and drafts stand out on a cluttered talk page they can be set out better in the first place, even in an unsigned section with a separate discussion sub-header. Look how atrociously this entire thread has turned out. How many different proposals were made in one thread? Where are they?  NewbyG  ( talk) 18:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If WP:PRESERVE is "best practice" should it be mentioned somewhere?
Like the title says. I am thinking about the quite different approaches that different editors take when they find materials without sourcing. A lot of Wikipedia requires sourcing to be added, but is not wrong, and so the "preserve" philosophy has wide acceptance. The way I understand it is something like "it often takes much less time to find an appropriate source, than to start deleting materials without first considering them in any way, but finding sourcing makes Wikipedia better while deleting materials potentially makes it worse".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PRESERVE has always been best practice. It belongs in the editing policy where it's always been, and I don't see why it's necessary to repeat it in WP:V as well, since nothing in WP:V contradicts WP:PRESERVE.— S Marshall  T/C 09:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but my comments comes after a quick run through this policy page. I noticed that it contains a section on how to tag etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Um... WP:PRESERVE is already mentioned in the policy (although indirectly - through a link)... The WP:BURDEN section states: "It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself." I think this is enough. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It has, alas, been frequently misused to abrogate WP:RS etc. as a long term claim to keep material in articles, and even to keep entire articles. Collect (talk) 13:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that is all to common... the reply to such misuse is to point editors to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM.


 * I agree - with you and with Collect. Dougweller (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've encountered situations where editors will try to delete uncited but verifiable content. I think a change is in order to make WP:PRESERVE more prominent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have encountered those situations myself... it isn't a big deal. The solution when someone tries to delete uncited but verifiable content is: FIX THE PROBLEM by providing a citation... Don't waste everyone's time (especially your own) bitching and moaning about how "unjustified" the challenge is -  it is far quicker and less stressful to just slap in a citation yourself.  If the material is deleted before you get a chance to do so... no problem... just return the material with a citation.  Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, and that's what I try to do. Fix it - if it's verifiable that should be possible. If you can't do it easily but are certain (because you can see snippets, etc) that it's verifiable, add a cite tag. If there was an old one there, it depends on how old it was. A few months and I might just restore the content and cite tag. Years old and I will just leave it deleted. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal if it's just a sentence or two. But what if an article is largely uncited?  Or relies on paper sources?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You also have the issue of editors who instantly revert without bothering to find sources themselves. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * PRESERVE is abused a lot: it should not be an excuse for keeping large portions of Wikipedia, the way it is. We have to make a long-term choice between being reliable (founding principle) and keeping information which is out-dated and whose reliability is unknown and certainly mixed with original research. Repeating PRESERVE here only makes the encyclopedia less reliable in practice.  In other words, you guys are looking at Wikipedia the way it was up to 5 years ago.  But that's not where it is now.  We are now in the phase where we say "Okay, the encyclopedia is about as large as it will ever get, so what material do we want to maintain long-term?"  And that's a decision which will require some pruning.  We absolutely cannot accomplish that pruning while trying to spend hours on each article trying to fix what the original-researcher didn't do right to begin with.  We should NOT be in the position of cleaning up after those who didn't read our policies.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I rarely see WP:PRESERVE being mentioned, let alone abused. Which articles do you work on where this is an issue? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just got out of a huge discussion at WT:FILM about this very sort of issue. While WP:PRESERVE didn't come up by name, there were certainly some editors who felt that even after being tagged for months/years for needing citations, it was inappropriate to remove unsourced information if it would, in their opinions, reduce the quality of the article. Nevermind the fact that other editors feel that it reduces the quality of an article to have unsourced information in the first place. Doniago (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that everyone would agree that all articles should be well-cited. The problem is that we don't have enough editors to go back and add cites to every article that needs them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good theory, but the reality is that some editors appeared to be arguing that if removing unsourced information from an article would lead to degradation of the article then it should be allowed to remain without citation and apparently regardless of how long it has been tagged for needing sourcing. But of course, that's the crux of the matter - whether an article is more degraded if it appears more fully fleshed-but contains unsourced material, or shorter but is fully sourced. Doniago (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Was anyone actively working on these articles? In my experience, most, if not all, poorly cited articles have no one working on them.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the most pertinent case, the article was tagged in June '11 and there were fewer than 15 edits prior to an editor relocating the unsourced material to the Talk page at the end of January. It only took one editor who objected to the removal of the material to launch a rather lengthy discussion...but in the end, sources were located and the article was improved. Doniago (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sofixit and PRESERVE

 * I agree that we are at a point where we need to deal with long standing unsourced and undersourced articles. I would love to FIXTHEPROBLEM myself... but I may realize that I do not know enough about the topic to do so. I don't even know where to find sources, or which sources are reliable if I find them... I have to take an alternative approach to Fixing the problem - One alternative is to challenge the information, and threaten deletion.  The threat of deletion brings attention to the article, and inspires editors who do know about the topic to work on it.  And if not... it gets deleted... no problem...  if the topic is truly notable, sooner or later another editor will notice that we don't have an article on the topic... and write one.  Hopefully he/she will do a better job with this second version.  Remember... The goal is to end up with a well written, well sourced article on every conceivable topic ... anything that helps achieve that goal is in the interest of the project. the threat of deletion (and even actual deletion) can be a positive thing. Blueboar (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A Quest For Knowledge, here is but one example, among what are probably millions of articles . Look at the articles.  Or go here, and notice that a lot of these articles are OR, and they are never going to be improved.  Keeping them is detrimental to Wikipedia in the long run, and PRESERVE is the only reason we keep the content. We simply need to blank many of them, with a link to the page history where the former content can be found: I don't know how to make a template which will do that automatically.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Blueboar, I got in trouble for deleting information which had been tagged for over a year. Hundreds of thousands of articles are completely abandoned.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @BeCritical: I asked for specific examples of where it is being missused, but I'm getting the feeling that you disagree with WP:PRESERVE itself. Is that correct? If so, that's a different issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That might well be. I picked a long-unsourced article from the list (Alignment (archaeology)), and found nothing in it that seemed likely to violate OR.  Specifically, it seemed likely to me (a largely ignorant person in this area) that each and every claim made in it was the sort that I could plausibly expect a textbook for an introductory course in archeology to support.  OR means "never, ever published in any source whatsoever".  It does not mean "nobody has yet bothered to type up the name of the source".  I cannot imagine how blanking this article would improve Wikipedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to be reliable. There is one, and only one, means of knowing if it is reliable: sourcing.  I do not intend that we delete the page history.  Rather, that unreliable information should not be presented as an article, but as a potential aid to writing a proper article.  Also, you picked an example most likely to be non-OR.  I'm talking about things like articles about local high schools.  I would not have a problem not blanking the text in article you picked either.  Also, it's on a subject where if you made a fuss someone might in fact come and source it. That's different.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Blueboar, if there is already a link to WP:PRESERVE I did not notice it. So maybe not necessary but OTOH if I did not notice it... I find some of the reasonings posted above are a little bit "typical" of policy page talk discussions in the way that they explain why something is not a problem because it is not a problem to a Wikipedian who is constantly logging on and has a big watchlist. That's always a pretty useless perspective. If you are not constantly logging on then violations of PRESERVE can simply go un-noticed. We also want to let lone good-intentioned editors know what is expected. BTW someone mentioned FIX THE PROBLEM. The philosophy of that is kind of the same as PRESERVE but more general. Here we are talking about it on the talk page as if everyone knows that, but will everyone who reads the policy page know about PRESERVE and FIX THE PROBLEM? Here is something to think about: many wikipedians do lazy edits. What is easier, deleting or going to find a source? And what if the policy pages emphasize that deleting is good, but say nothing about PRESERVE? It encourages people to do what is easiest. Of course I know Doug and Blueboar are not lazy editors, but they are not typical editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How will editors find out about PRESERVE/FIXTHEPROBLEM if this policy page does not prominently mention it? simple... other editors will point them to it in the course of discussion.  After all, that is how most editors find out about any our policies and guidelines - including WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc.  Blueboar (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And how will those editors find out about it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * From people like you and me, who already know about it. I guess this really comes down to:  Do we really need to draw attention to these provisions in this policy.  You obviously think so.  I obviously disagree. Blueboar (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It took me 6 months or so before I discovered WP:PRESERVE. I found out about V, OR, and NPOV very quickly.  I find it fascinating that you spend so much time trying to fix something that isn't broken but when real problems are actually brought up here, you're against fixing them.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup... I don't think anything is broken when it comes to mentioning PRESERVE/FIXTHEPROBLEM, and I think something is broken (or at least cracked) when it comes to VNT. I guess "Is it broken?" is a question that people can disagree on as much as the solution. Blueboar (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Blueboar: Well, I'm glad that you've finally come clean and admitted that you have an opinion that VNT is broken, and are not some neutral party who has no interest in the outcome as previously claimed. Honesty is good. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If both WP:PRESERVE and WP:SOFIXIT are not yet prominently linked on the project page, they both easily could be with the addition of a handful of bytes. That would be a good way for new readers to pop over there for a read. What about the See Also section? That sub=section is meant to be for useful links that are not yet linked in the body of the project page. NewbyG  ( talk) 23:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * They are linked (just so everyone knows... WP:PRESERVE and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM are both shortcuts to the same section of the policy). Sure, they could be linked in the see also section... they could also be linked in ITALIC BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS to ensure that people saw it... but why?  As Quest likes to ask me... what problem are we trying to solve? Blueboar (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant are there any that should be removed from the See Also. Only necessary ones not already linked in the article should be added. cheers NewbyG  ( talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The Editing policy is already linked from Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so it should not be duplicated as a see also. I agree with Blueboars point, what makes the editing policy so special (compared to the 20 other policies, including pillars such as wp:IAR and wp:ENC) that it should be specifically linked from this one? Yoenit (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we won't be wanting edit wars, anyway, not over a few bytes. NewbyG is on 1RR, except for self-reverts. Hopefully, not too many occasions where I have to self-revert myself twice! cheers NewbyG  ( talk) 00:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Links, good. Too many links bad. Links very good. Add some links. NewbyG  ( talk) 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Blueboar, as I already said, your solution, or argument that no solution is needed, is only relevant for well-watched articles. We must be careful about writing policy pages in such a way that they only describe how the best pages get made better. A big part of Wikipedia, which needs more help, are articles with no experienced editor constantly watching them. I just have a feeling our policy pages are written with a delete bias, and we hardly need to do this, because deleting is always the lazy option anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand what it is you are concerned with here, Andrew... what exactly do you see happening on well-watched articles that is not happening on less-watched articles (or vise/versa)? Blueboar (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:Twitter vs WP:TWITTER
It appears that WP:Twitter redirects to WP:External links/Perennial websites, but WP:TWITTER (differing only in capitalisation) redirects to WP:Verifiability. Can or should we do something about this? Mitch Ames (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I note that the "WP:Twitter" redirect to WP:EL/Perennial websites is used very rarely (see what links to it)... while the "WP:TWITTER" redirect to WP:V#Self-published is used quite often (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:TWITTER what links to it]). To some degree this difference in usage may be due to the relative ages of the two redirects ("WP:Twitter" was created in January of 2011, while "WP:TWITTER" goes all the way back in 2009)... but the difference in usage does show that there is more demand for a link to WP:V and less demand for a link to WP:EL/Pw.
 * On the other hand... the target page for "WP:TWITTER" (a sub-section of WP:V) has other options that could be used as shortcuts (WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SELFPUB, and WP:SOCIALMEDIA) while the section in WP:EL/PW that is the target of "WP:Twitter" has only that one redirect - and I am not sure whether there is any other logical terms that could be used as alternatives.
 * In short... I can see how the similarity might cause confusion, but I am not sure how (or if) to resolve it. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth here is the context of why I was looking at those pages. Her Twitter page is currently the only (written) reference that says that Alicia Loxley ( Gorey) is going by her married name, and we are discussing whether the article (and other references to her) should be renamed. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources (Kevin Shepherd)
I have posted a lengthy analysis of an RSN discussion concerning the self-published books of Kevin Shepherd over at the RSN Talk Page. I am bringing it to the attention of people here because it may have some implications for the wording of WP:SPS. In any case, I would welcome discussion of the issue by the broader community. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry... but that is way too long to read... could you provide a short one paragraph summary of the key points? Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is long. You could just read Point 38 near the end, but it depends for its force on the preceding points. If you're feeling adventurous, you could also read 33 to 37. Simon Kidd (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant point for discussion here is: 37. Finally, if an author like Shepherd is caught in the "net" of the so-called "threshold test", then I think it is time to take another look at this test. After all, the policies and guidelines have evolved to their current state to meet the various exigencies of providing reliable information. I would imagine that an author like Shepherd is rare, perhaps even unique in Wikipedia annals. He may be a "test case" for existing policy. The relevant part of SPS would only need to be modified slightly, perhaps along the following lines: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. In exceptional circumstances, a self-published author may be acceptable if he has multiple publications, over a sustained period, uses the scholarly apparatus, and is cited by other (preferably academic) authors." Simon Kidd (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Cmt on "unsourced material is true"
@Jayen:This is more of a technical issue:

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.[under discussion]

The it in this sengence refers back to material. Verifiability determines whether the material/content is sourced or not sourced and eventually reliably sourced. We can't say at this point in the definition that we dealing with either sourced or unsourced content, its just content until Verifaibilty is applied and the content judged.

So this sentence

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.[under discussion]

should read

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.[under discussion]

or better

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 the material is true.[under discussion]

(181,776 bytes)15:14, 11 February 2012‎ Littleolive oil (talk | contribs)‎ reviewer, 14188 edits since: 2006-12-12


 * Well... that gets us back to examining the original intent of VNT... if you look at the first appearance of the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" (in a draft version of WP:NOR, created by Slim Virgin back on 8 Dec. 2004} it is clear that what was being talked about relates explicitly to unverifiable material.
 * She included an example to clarify her intent... Steven Hawking might tell you in person that he thinks a theory is rubbish... but you can not mention Hawking's opinion in Wikipedia because it is not verifiable. You know the information (that Hawking thinks the theory is rubbish) is 100% true (he told you so himself)... but you still can not add it... not because there is doubt about it's truth... but because it is unverifiable. Blueboar (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Olive, verifiability is about not having material in Wikipedia that is unsourced AND unsourceable. We have several policies advising editors to exercise their judgment as to whether sourced (or at least sourceable) information is true, or likely to be true, and should be included in Wikipedia; among them WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:REDFLAG, and WP:MEDRS. We can't say something in the opening paragraph of this policy that appears to contradict or invalidate several other important policies and guidelilnes. Whether sourced material should be in the article or not is a matter for WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:IRS, etc., not WP:V. Best, -- J N  466  15:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You both misunderstand what I'm saying. This specific point is about structure and syntax not about the policy per say. First, we can't say verifiable or unverifiable at this point in this sentence becasue it precludes application of the policy in terms of the language, of the sentence. We're just talking about 'material", period. Second, syntactically we are referring back to material in the sentence,  the sentence does not say un sourced or sourced material, it says material. This is a simple, structural, and technical  situation, a simple syntactical  point or points. It isn't complex or dealing with any part of the underlying meaning of the policy. I wouldn't have brought this up if I'd thought it would turn into another discussion about the policy itself. (olive (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC))


 * Can you see that this doesn't make sense in terms of syntax, "not whether editors think unverifiable material is true." editors aren't judging verifiability at this point. In fact an editor who thinks something is true is not even dealing with the action of verifying something.(olive (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC))


 * Its not sourced or unsourced either ... its just material. (olive (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC))


 * OK...you are talking about grammar and not meaning. You may have a valid point about the grammar.  However it does us no good to correct the grammar if in the course of doing so we loose meaning.  The sentence ends up being worthless...  The solution (of course) is to rewrite the sentence in a way that conveys the intended meaning and uses good grammar.  I will once again suggest something like:  "The threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth - do not add unverifiable material to Wikipedia, even if you are positive that it is true."
 * On another track... Re: "editors aren't judging verifiability at this point"... not sure if I agree or disagree with that... could you clarify what you mean by "at this point"?  What we are trying to tell editors that they need to determine verifiability before they add something Wikipedia. ie "at this point" would be when they are thinking of doing so. Is this the same "at this point" that you are talking about? Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We have to start somewhere. How can we judge the sentence if its incorrectly written. Correcting syntax should be a pretty simple action. Changing the sentence on this talk page another issue altogether. Fix the syntax, then look at meaning, then make a change if needed.(olive (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC))


 * I would reverse that... first figure out what you are trying to say (the meaning)... then craft a sentence that has good syntax. Blueboar (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I would too, if we weren't on this page with a sentence already in place, where every move is contentious.(olive (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC))
 * HA... welcome to WP:V, where even correcting grammar and syntax can be contentious. Blueboar (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As you said. Sheesh. Why bother?(olive (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC))

edit conflict:

@Dicklyon: you reverted a correction in syntax with, it makes more sense...and with out being part of this discussion. The correction replaced the indefinite "it" with the referred to "material", in reverting to "unsourced content" you've weakened the syntax.olive (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC))

Does anyone mind of I change "it" to "material" which is what the "it" is referencing, and which will strengthen syntax with out a change in meaning?(olive (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC))

Vnt and V's importance
There are naturally exceptions to VnT, typos, math errors, minor things. Major things need a widespread consensus, a single editor or even a small group of editors cannot keep out reliably sourced content because they don't think it's true. There are always exceptions to rules, none of which mean the rule needs to go away. Dreadstar ☥   23:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? I don't know anyone who doesn't think evolution is true.  Maybe things are different in America, but where I come from, evolution of species is a truth universally accepted.  But the key point is that we do include false things.  It is right that Wikipedia has articles on Bigfoot, creationism, moon landing conspiracy theories, and perpetual motion machines.  What matters is that when we're covering something false, we use appropriate language.  So an article about a real creature uses simple declarative sentences ("The domestic dog ... is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus), a member of the Canidae family of the mammilian order Carnivora") while an article about a cryptid uses reported speech that distances itself from false claims ("The chupacabra... is a legendary cryptid rumored to inhabit parts of the Americas. The sighting reports of chupacabras end up being uncorroborated eyewitness reports without evidence or canids with mange [3]. Biologists and wildlife management officials view the chupacabras as a contemporary legend.") In practice, in examples like this, Wikipedia does make a distinction between truth and falsehood.  We include verifiable falsehoods but we do not treat them as if they were truth.  One of the biggest problems with VNT is that it dismisses the truth, and that Wikipedians use it to pretend that there's no difference between true material and false material.  Some Wikipedians such as Dreadstar or Doc9871 claim this in good faith, but I suspect that others have less pure motives.— S Marshall  T/C 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And if the threshold for inclusion was whether or not an editor thought sourcable content was false, we probably wouldn't even have articles on bigfoot or ufo's - certainly no content by anyone who believes in those kinds of things, or are purported to be eyewitnesses. If they were allowed to exist, then the content would be purely "Bigfoot is a myth and only crackpots and woo-woo's believe in it".  The key is that it's not whether you believe a subject is true, it's whether or not reliably sourced content can be included, even if you don't believe it to be true.  There's a difference.  The skeptical language you describe isn't strictly due to WP:V, it's mainly due to NPOV and OR - but yes, that language isn't because editors believe it's false, it's because reliable mainstream sources do.   Dreadstar  ☥   23:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the above example are red herrings because they involve areas where there is a significant division of opinion and so a different policy (wp:npov) would dictate inclusion of material which most believe to be false. Using a few red herring examples to support a categorical statement which was essentially "accuracy never matters regarding inclusion/exclusion of material (and the wik-lawyer corollary: wp:ver is a magic bullet to exclude accuracy from any editor conversation) falls several levels short.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a gross distortion of what's been said. Dreadstar  ☥   00:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually I don't think there is one single threshold for inclusion. Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion.  It's not "the threshold".  Even if there was one single threshold for inclusion I've never understood why WP:V has to define it, despite the various less-than-convincing explanations that I've heard.  I've never understood why our policy on verifiability has to mention truth or thresholds at all and I've always thought it was just opening unnecessary cans of worms.  WP:V should be about the principle that anything you add to Wikipedia ought to be attributable to reliable sources.  It doesn't have to say anything else at all.— S Marshall  T/C 00:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but it is the threshold, if it doesn't cross WP:V, it doesn't get in, period. Doesn't matter what the other policies say or don't say, those come into play after the threshold is met.  Dreadstar  ☥   00:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That depends what you mean by "threshold". What we should accept, though, is that most people think that once you cross the threshold, you are in the house. --FormerIP (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you can just use the bathroom, that's it. No living here. :)  Threshold in this context is the point of beginning, and the lede makes it clear that just passing the threshold doesn't guarantee inclusion - there are these other policies that need to be applied now that the threshold for inclusion had been met.    Dreadstar  ☥   00:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the new, unnecessarily convoluted language does go some way to neutralising its own problem. --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't want this to be about VnT... I want to include the section which related V to other policies, and said how if you follow V properly and keep your own ideas about truth or falsehood or whatever else out of it, then you will automatically meet the requirements of the other policies. So correct me if I'm wrong... but people have basically agreed here that it is just about the sources, not about what we as editors believe.  Maybe our beliefs tell us where to look harder for other sources, but basically if it's got sufficient reliable sourcing it gets in, and if it doesn't it's excluded, regardless of what editors believe.  If I'm right about the consensus on this, may we include the paragraph, or are there other objections?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No. You haven't addressed the objection. It doesn't read the way you are supposing it does. What the actual text you added suggests, taken without the additional explanation (which is how users will take it), is that we are somehow supposed to behave as automatons and the sources will somehow tell us what to include and what not to include. That seems to me very obviously not the way WP works, and editors will give themselves hernias if they try to live up to it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with FormerIP. So Becritical was half right (sources as a requirement for inclusion) and half wrong (essentially sourcing mandating inclusion) North8000 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then discuss it in the above section, this one is a slightly different subject. Dreadstar  ☥   01:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my fault. I've sectionalised this... Dreadstar  ☥   00:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, you sectioned it off. I hope others will comment on that suggested new section.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead looks pretty good
I think the lead looks pretty good. One thing I noticed in my own perception, is that immediately after someone changes something, I tend to be more critical than after I have had one or two nights sleep and look at it again. May I suggest that we let the current version sit for awhile before making any more changes? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah the current version's pretty good, with a lot of clearer wording, and a lot of the fat trimmed- mostly the stuff which seemed to have been added based on specific problems someone was having, and served only to emphasize what was already in the text. But there might be somewhere we can go with VnT, on the talk page that is.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Not perfect, but pretty good. And likely good enough to back off for a little while and let some of the rhetorical dust settle. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"verifiability, not truth"

 * Speaking as a member of this allegedly powerful "minority" (but not speaking for anyone else), moving VNT down in the paragraph is a good step towards compromise. But it's not going to be enough, you see. It has to be eradicated. I, for one, am tired of being accused of "filibustering", "blocking progress", etc. You are all rational people, I assume. I probably agree with each and every one of you on many issues, but disagree on many others. I disagree on removing VNT, and consensus (at this time) does not support removing it. To toy around with VNT (I will not call it "VnT" anymore, as all three words are lowercase with no emphasis on any one word) much further shows an unwillingness to compromise when the agenda has been clearly stated. You want VNT gone? Don't think that when it gets removed or altered significantly that those who have a legitimate opinion different from those who want it wiped away will not notice, or just ignore it and say, "Oh, well!" Doc   talk  01:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well as someone who originally supported VnT (and I still like it), I'll tell you why I changed my mind: VnT is great: it says a very important thing. But people don't understand it.  We need to either eliminate it (as it's not strictly necessary) or rewrite it to something that's understandable.  What do you think it means?  It should be restated in terms anyone can comprehend.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  02:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's what I think it means, in a nutshell. This is just a small example. After endless vandalism based on fantastical and untrue original research, I removed this claim. This erroneous and unreferenced statement had been used to create even more original research, which was undone. Now, this is an example of someone trying to introduce something that is untrue, without any reference to support its claim of truth. To them, it may be true. To the rest of the world, lacking credible evidence via verifiable sources, it's not to be assumed to be true. That's how I interpret it. Doc   talk  02:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  03:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. And I don't think we need to replace VNT with anything else. And that idiotic "under discussion" tag should just be removed. It will always be under discussion until VNT is gone. Move it to the last sentence of the lede? Not enough. No compromise is acceptable for those that seek the utter destruction of VNT. Doc   talk  04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If that is correct, it is a formulation of VnT which no one can mis-interpret, and should replace VnT. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  04:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does no one opposing VNT actually see the true purpose of VNT? To grab your attention - and then explain it. It does not stand alone without proper explanation. It must be explained with content such as you just mentioned. What you said could certainly help explain the concept better, but it cannot replace it. Doc   talk  05:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're repeating my own arguments for VnT. But frankly... I was underestimating human dumbness.  I've recently observed (and no offense) smart editors who have been here for years and truly want to understand be unable to understand.  VnT needs to be replaced because people are too damn dumb for the second part, the "explain it" part.  Or else they don't have philosophy training.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No offense taken (I think) ;> If we "dumb it down" any more by adding more lengthy explanations, I don't know how the ones that are too damn dumb would even have a chance to understand it. There's no advantage. If people cannot get VNT, after carefully reading the explanation: too bad. We don't need to change policy wording for those hypothetical users that will never understand it no matter how it is worded. Doc   talk
 * And yet maybe I misunderstand as well, because I think the full concept can be conveyed with what I said above "Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors." Include or exclude stands in for "threshold," Reliable sources stands in for "verifiability," and Beliefs of editors is another way of saying "truth."  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not as catchy. And that's the entire point of VNT. The "catchiness" (i.e. "bolding") is why you want it gone. Explaining it, quantifying it... this is necessary after the statement, within the same sentence. You can't have one without the other. Bolding your suggestion and removing VNT in its stead would not work. Doc   talk  05:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your beliefs are irrelevant: only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not what editors think is true or false."  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think adding "Your beliefs are irrelevant" is really going to solve anything. I'm starting to think you're possibly being "cheeky". Are you actually being serious with that last proposal? Doc   talk  06:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, you wanted something catchy. "Catchy" is the only thing that "Verifiability not truth" has going for it, and it means the same thing. To me it seems equally serious. Maybe because it's new to you you see it for what it is: not appropriate for policy just like VnT.  Catchy is good, but it goes only so far.  And, Doc, you basically just admitted that given alternate easily-understood phrasing, catchyness is the only thin VnT has going for it.  The decision therefore is whether catchyness is sufficient recompense for all the misunderstanding.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  06:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The allusion to the many "misunderstandings" that purportedly necessitate this change for the project's greater good has never been established, despite the claims of the majority to eliminate VNT. It always seems to be, "Oh, that evidence is there: trust me." I see no pressing reason to remove VNT, and with the complete lack of evidence demonstrating how it is allegedly constantly misinterpreted by any real majority of good-faith editors, both old and new: why get rid of it? Doc   talk  06:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Red flag

 * I've seen the misunderstanding right here on this page among the regulars. A Quest for Knowledge, I believe, and he's smart.  And others.  I don't want to name names, although AQFN I hope won't mind.  IOW, I was an outsider to this issue, but if people who have been reading it for years still misunderstand, I believe something is wrong.  It wasn't anyone's argument that convinced me, but observation.  So I think that VnT is flawed, and perhaps only certain kinds of brains can understand it.  I live in a situation where I see the various capabilities of people, the different ways they understand.  There are people who could be very valuable, but have no chance of understanding VnT.  Once I figured out it was elitism, I could no longer advocate for VnT.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  06:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The misunderstandings (both innocent and deliberate) are extensive, and many many many examples have been given in this talk page over the last 14 months. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If understanding policy constitutes the "elite" - then I guess only the elite are entitled to edit here. There are plenty of editors every day who will understand no element of any policy. We have to block those sorts when their interpretation of policy conflicts with the community's interpretation. If someone cannot understand VNT by reading past that sentence: they probably cannot understand broader concepts and do not want to. We can't teach them how to do that, and eliminating VNT will not achieve that lofty goal. Doc   talk  06:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For the sake of catchy, only the elite shall understand policy. I don't mean to be rude, but that's where our discussion got us.  Don't say no one ever told you where the misunderstandings of VnT occurred though.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  06:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're the elite and not trying to be rude to me specifically: no need to be sorry then, is there? Fancy a shoe shine, Guv'nor? Doc   talk  06:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (: No, you do get it. We only disagree about whether it would be best to say the same thing in simpler terms so more people could understand.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  07:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * VNT supporters have had the opportunity to make all these arguments, and it's interesting that the number of people converted to a pro-VNT view after all that discussion was only 1: in other words, less than half a percent of Wikipedians who participated in the RFC found the pro-VNT arguments convincing. Equally, the best arguments the anti-VNT side could muster have only persuaded about four people in total (depending on how you count the change in Blueboar's position, and whether you consider Becritical was converted by the arguments), so at most two percent of Wikipedians found the anti-VNT arguments convincing. This divide seems to be like the divide between the political right and the political left, or that between sceptics and religious believers:- it doesn't seem to be capable of being resolved through rational discussion. I suggest that the exercise is pointless. We should stop trying and put it to a simple majority vote.— S Marshall T/C 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the initial para of the lead currently has comprehensibility problems. It says that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, then it goes on to sat that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I'm a big fan of "verifiability, not truth", but I'm thinking that it might be better to put it differently. How about something like "Verifiability&mdash;whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source&mdash;is the primary threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, however, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion$[link to a footnote expanding on that and providing links to those other policies]$.

Editorial perception of truth—whether editors think unsourced material is true—is not a factor in deciding whether inclusion is warranted."

I'm a crappy writer, and I'm sure that can be improved. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not so happy with "Editorial perception of truth", which is rather vague. Just leave that out and the sentence works fine. Besides that, the proposal breaks up the Holy Trinity completely, so right now it has zero chance of obtaining the consensus necessary to implement it. Yoenit (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that some formulation around "a hurdle" might avoid some of the confusion over "a/the threshold". LeadSongDog come howl!  15:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Green flag

 * Consider it this way... the front door is the threshold of my apartment... however, walking through my front door (crossing the threshold) does not guarantee that you will remain in my apartment. There are many reasons why I might kick you out. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The funny thing was that Doc admitted my summary captured the essence of VnT, and had only the reason left that VnT is catchier. And he said that if people couldn't understand VnT they shouldn't be allowed to edit. Is that opposed to WP spirit or what?   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Doc... VNT is catchier than your proposed wording. I also think the average editor would find it easier to understand than your proposed wording.  So if it were a choice between them, I would favor VNT. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How can you be serious about that? That is so... weird. I think you've lived with VnT too long. I mean, I know it's my wording, but come on!  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Becritical - I did not say that "if people couldn't understand VnT they shouldn't be allowed to edit". I was making a much broader generalization about the hypothetical editors that would have a fundamental problem understanding those three words (and the explanation that must follow them to explain the concept). There are people who should not edit WP, and I was saying that anyone who walks away from reading VNT and begins adding deliberate falsehoods simply because those falsehoods are verifiable either: a) Have not done their homework by reading up on the other policies that support WP:V, as well as reading WP:V carefully to begin with, or b) Is probably incompetent to edit here in the first place. It's just my observation, and a sweeping hypothetical generalization, and I don't feel it's against the spirit of WP. Doc   talk  04:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But in actuality, you are saying that many editors who have been here for years, such as the ones on this page, should not edit here. "If understanding policy constitutes the "elite" - then I guess only the elite are entitled to edit here... If someone cannot understand VNT by reading past that sentence: they probably cannot understand broader concepts..."  Doc, I'm telling you, the regulars can't understand it.  It's documented above in recent conversations and an edit war.  You are actually telling a good portion of WP editors to go away.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone here who has deliberately added untrue material to WP based on their reading of VNT as it is: raise your hands. Doc   talk  05:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (crickets chirping)


 * I know there must be a lot of you, as this is such a widespread problem among the regulars. There will accordingly be a lot of cases to look over, so it may take some time to process them all. Don't be shy coming forward with your examples, as even if you made this mistake as a newbie it was clearly understandable due to the wording. There's no shame in being a victim of policy wording here - speak up on how VNT led you astray to publish falsehoods. We can hopefully prevent future victimization with your input here. Doc   talk  07:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have added untrue information to Wikipedia, based on VnT. As has anyone else who follows NPOV.  That's what VnT says to do.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  07:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you do it after reading the VNT portion of V and not NPOV at all, or did you do it because you didn't understand the NPOV aspect of the untrue edit? In other words, did your interpretation of VNT reinforce that you were allowed to add it, knowing it was untrue? If so, you might have referenced it as the reason for your edit at the time. I know I would point to policy to back up my edit if it were controversial. Doc   talk  07:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me give an example I remember better: the lead of Abortion, where the untruth that there is nothing called "abortion" after viability is blandly and knowingly perpetrated based on MEDRS. And I would perpetrate such an untruth if I had no other choice based on the sources.  Because, we do indeed knowingly and purposely put untruths into Wikipedia, if the sources give us no choice.  That's what VnT tells us to do.  And if you don't know that, then you also misunderstand VnT, and you're a good example of why it must be changed.  Talk with you tomorrow.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  08:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You continue to point at me, showing a flaw in your arguing of this "major problem". It's not about me, Becritical. You take credit for the original wording, yet now you want to kill your own creation? Have you ever read the Frankenstein novel? It's taken on a life of its own for quite some time now, and coming at me with accusations of going against WP is hardly going to help whatever damage you're trying to prevent here from the monster you unleashed. And I'm quite sure that the thoughtful input in the thread below will probably be dismissed as "TLDR filibustering" by certain people here. Actually read it, though. Doc   talk  08:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Blue flag

 * I certainly never intended to take credit for inventing VnT. And I did read the thread below, I almost suggested he put it up as an essay. I listened to Frankenstein on audio, you can get it from librivox.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

As background, I'll open my comment with the one idea which I've propose before and which received neither negative nor positive feedback. And that is to put the following somewhere in the policy: "Not truth" in this policy means that truth is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. Putting it another way, "accuracy is not s substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement." The most common mis-construing of VNT is to say that VNT says "accuracy never matters". IMHO, the "is not a factor in deciding whether inclusion is warranted." phrase makes this problem worse, not better. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The most common mis-construing of VNT is to say that VNT...
 * ...exists independent of "The threshold for inclusion..." JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly what you are saying, but it sounds like I agree with it. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead used to say 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 it is true." I don't understand why WP:Verifiability was changed from "it" to "unsourced material." I was making a point about WP:Verifiability to another editor moments ago, but saw that the change throws off the whole meaning. That part of the line should be talking about whether or not editors think the sourced material is true. If it's unsourced and is not something that is common sense, then of course editors have the right to strongly contest it and remove it. On the other hand, editors should not remove text supported by a reliable source or skew its meaning just because they think it's untrue. They can remove it if they have a more reliable source proving the other one wrong. 23.20.59.196 (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked at your discussion on that talk page at the bottom of the section titled Media section.  According to your discussion, it looked like the editor was trying to make a change to unsourced material that he thought was true. So the present version of the sentence of this policy  would support your revert. --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But the editor was not making a change to unsourced material. He or she was making a change to sourced material because it's the sourced material that the editor believes to be untrue. It's because of this belief that the editor felt he or she could change the sourced material to something it doesn't say. Therefore, I completely disagree with Jayen466's assertion that "The original and intended meaning of [the debated WP:Verifiability phrasing] relates to unsourced facts (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 55). "Not truth" also relates to sourced facts; it's just as much about editors challenging sourced material because they believe that material to be wrong. This is exactly what the editor I reverted was doing. Going by what he or she believes to be true and not the sources. WP:Verifiability is partly about challenging unsourced material, but it's not like Wikipedia follows unsourced material. Jayen saying that the previous phrasing led people to believe that sourced material could not be challenged is his and others' interpretation, but that's not what I interpreted from the line. I interpreted it to mean "Don't remove or skew sourced information because you think it's false or disagree with it. Not unless you provide reliable sources and (or) ample justification to support your cause." And judging by how long that phrasing lasted, I'd wager that a lot of people interpreted it the way I did. Yes, people walking away with different interpretations of a policy is not a good thing, but that issue can be fixed by better phrasing. Adding "unsourced material" and leaving it at that is not better phrasing, in my opinion, because WP:Verifiability is not only about challenging unsourced material. Similar to how Jayen complained that the previous phrasing could (and did) lead some people to believe that sourced material could not be challenged, the current phrasing (unless they read more of the page, like they should do anyway to get a better sense of what we're saying) will lead some people to believe that WP:Verifiability is not about challenging sourced material. If anything, WP:Verifiability is about both sourced and unsourced material. I understand what you are saying about an editor thinking unsourced material (material he or she has yet to add to the article) is true. But what if that editor is challenging sourced material? That's all I'm saying. 107.22.74.73 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

White flag

 * I propose that the part of the line I object to be changed to "not whether editors think sourced or unsourced material is true." Per my above rationale. 107.22.74.73 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Did the editor try to put unsourced material into the article with the justification that it was true? --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: I just noticed that Dreadstar changed "unsourced" back to "it", which is essentially what 107.22.74.73/ 23.20.59.196  wanted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of something Bob? Sure sounds like it... Dreadstar  ☥   21:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and my apologies for thinking so. Dreadstar  ☥   02:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Reverted. IP, from my looking at the situation you described on Talk:Adolescence, the editor with whom you were in dispute tried to add material that he believed to be true, but did not have a source for. Meanwhile, the material he wished to add contradicted the sources that were cited. This is exactly what the sentence you found fault with says he should not be allowed to do. He may believe that "slightly" is more correct than "much", but it is unsourced, and his belief that this unsourced information is true matters not a jot. Hence you were right to revert him, and the policy wording supported you in that. -- J N  466  14:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good, pretty arbitrary break

 * Hi, I tuned out for a few weeks (something I highly recommend here!), and, on returning, I think that the lead indeed does look pretty good. Good progress, everyone! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. Now let's get on to the second paragraph. I only have four years of editing remaining. Wifione  Message 05:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(I have crept in and out of the verifiability, not truth debates every once in a while over the past 4 months or so.) I am glad to see that the discourse is mostly with the wording, because the last time I had been following these discussions, there were a number of people genuinely opposed to not only the wording of VNT, but the concept itself. I think Doc has a point though; there are people who still genuinely object to the blunt concept of VNT as it is worded, and because they have had a few sour experiences with it being misinterpreted, they will probably never stop pursuing its complete removal from WP:V.

I think views on VNT largely have to do with editors' experiences in whether VNT has been used appropriately or abused, which have predisposed us to view VNT as either helpful or harmful. I haven't the numbers to say with any particular degree of certainty, but if we were to have many editors stack up our scenarios and engage in a war of examples, I am confident that there are probably far more cases in which VNT was helpful and/or used appropriately rather than harmful and/or abused. The past arguments I've seen that VNT has been most often abused in attempts to include sourced untruths provided outlier examples that were very few and far in between. I watch over a number of articles dealing with topics where fringe views abound and barrages of POV edits rain constantly. My experiences, along with my most common acquaintances at those articles, have been very positive in using the verifiability, not truth language to convey to editors that they must be able to verify that content is published in reliable third party sources, and that their opinions as to its truth value are ultimately irrelevant. Often times, this results in editors throwing their hands up and leaving once they realize that "writing off the cuff" doesn't pass for content here at Wikipedia and that they cannot use Wikipedia to promote their ideas of the truth (this has been a common occurrence at New World Order (conspiracy theory)). Other times, it results in editors returning with reliable sources. My experiences have shown me that, VNT is most often a valuable tool for stopping unsourced content from entering articles, especially in those articles most vulnerable due to controversial subject matter. It has also been a valuable tool for combating unwarranted attempts to delete content that is verifiable. Consider this anonymous edit which tagged Virgin cleansing myth for speedy deletion because the editor believes that the myth doesn't exist and that it was just a hoax rendered by the creators of Southpark. The editor who reverted the tag didn't necessarily include VNT or WP:V in his summary, but this is the kind of scenario in which, if the IP came to the talk page to follow up, I or someone else could have invoked VNT to explain that what he believes to be true about the myth doesn't matter, and can't be used to attack the inclusion of the article's content, versus the verifiability established by its reliable sources.

S Marshall interestingly notes the deep divide in editors' opinions on VNT verbiage. What I find ironic is that VNT is what allows us to transcend our divided opinions on truth value when editing articles. Edit enough controversial topics on Wikipedia and you'll easily recognize why such a principle is so vital to Wikipedia. It is perhaps the very principle that allows us to have reasonably good articles on topics like Creationism and Evolution, about which many editors hold starkly contrasting beliefs. If truth were a guiding principle, there'd be no hope, as editors hold different views on whether _____ is true and would probably fight to the bitter unend. Is it true that the Earth is flat, or verifiable that some people think it's flat? Are 9/11 conspiracy theories true? Are they false? Ask these questions in virtually any city on the planet and you'll get a nice variety of answers. How would we ever move forward with an article about these topics? The solution is to uphold verifiability - since editors have vastly different views, we avoid "truth" because we can't agree on what's true. What we can agree on more often than "truth factor" is whether something can be verified to have been published in a reliable third-party source. If it can be, we characterize and summarize it. If not, we find a better source or we debate about the reliability until an understanding is reached. In either case we can move forward if our guiding principle is verifiability, but we'll be stuck in unending cyclical debate if our guiding principle is truth. I think that the lot of you who have stuck through the thick and thin of the months-long VNT debate already understand this, so I don't mean to preach to the choir.

So, why can't we make this usefulness of VNT a part of its explanation in the lede? We needn't necessarily give specific examples such as these, but what's wrong with having the policy communicate the purpose of VNT and what it enables, in addition to communicating what it is (in a succinct way, of course)? John Shandy`  &bull; talk 08:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The concept behind a rightly interpreted VnT is indeed absolutely vital. I just think it could be put better, that's all. But I'm sort of frustrated now because I was told that my preferred wording was actually harder to understand than VnT, so I don't know what to do now.  Maybe we are up against highly different ways of being able to understand text?   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  08:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What you'll find, I'm afraid, is that there are editors who can and will find anything confusing and unclear when compared to VNT. There are no limits at all on what people will say to stop you editing that sentence. I'd just like to repeat that there's clear evidence that editors do not and will not change their minds on this. Since it's a binary choice (VNT or a phrase less open to wilful misunderstanding, my favourite being "It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it"), the only way we could compromise would be to alternate versions, so it said VNT on Monday Wednesday and Friday and something else on Tuesdays Thursdays and weekends. I put it to you that a real compromise is unachievable and we should present editors with a choice to be decided by simple majority vote, with Blueboar's compromise as one of the options.— S Marshall T/C 10:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * S Marshal, I don't agree that it is a binary choice - VNT or a phrase less open to misunderstanding. I think we could satisfy both sides in this debate by trying for VNT and a phrase less open to misunderstanding.  Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, some things never change. I agree with Blueboar, but then, you all knew that already. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup... same old, same old. Welcome back. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Purple flag

 * I agree with Blueboar. I also don't understand the perception that this is a scenario in which we can just pick one via voting, especially when predicated on an assumption that VNT is more open to misunderstanding. What VNT supporters have argued is that it is less prone to misunderstanding than other editors would have us believe. If we were interested in making a truly informed decision, we would go out of our way to stack up examples where VNT was found to be confusing or caused frivolous debates at article talk pages, and examples where VNT was found to be straightforward. There would most likely be a clear winner. This is of course impractical, so I don't really propose we do it, although in normal circumstances I think appeasing two sides in a debate is silly if one side is coming up short. Expanding the lead paragraphs of WP:V to provide an adequate and extra-comprehensible explanation that follows VNT is certainly rational.


 * When these VNT discussions began, I interpreted VNT opposition as born from a relatively small number of seasoned editors who experienced a sudden series of unfortunate encounters with editors incompetent enough to misunderstand WP:V or willfully ignorant enough to dismiss it, and who then looked to "fix" unbroken policy while not realizing that they were simply dealing with incompetent/ignorant editors. Over time this has only become clearer.


 * Think about how most people are introduced to policies. The average reader has no idea that a Wikipedia: namespace even exists, much less that there such things as policies. By the time a reader becomes an editor, they've probably made at least a few edits before journeying over to a policy page, even then probably not to read one in its entirety. Most editors learn about policy in an informal way, when they do something bold that gets reverted, and a seasoned editor explains the concepts of a policy in that article's context to them on a talk page (I would guess that slightly over half of my article talk page posts have served to do just this). So, we can write each core content policy perfectly, but that's not going to have a major impact on new editors, or any impact on willfully ignorant/incompetent editors. It is similar to editors who ignore the parts of WP:NOR that state it's not enough to have reliable sources, but they must be used appropriately to avoid synthesis; or the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV, which states that NPOV doesn't mean neutral to all sides, but neutral in proportion to the weights that various points of view hold in the reliable literature on a subject. Misunderstandings such as these will never go away. Policy text is, in my opinion, much more a tool for talk page WP:BRD discussions about dubious edits ex post, rather than an initiative to prevent dubious edits ex ante. So, while some see the VNT as unhelpful to deterring questionable inclusion/exclusion of content, others see such questionable inclusions/exclusions as inevitable, and see VNT as helpful in discussing and resolving such cases. We are concerned that we're going to lose what has proven itself a very powerful tool for the rhetorical combating of misguided attempts to include/exclude content based on truth value.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 20:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I endorse this analysis. I've never met John Shandy before this, never paid any attention to his edits. But this is absolutely spot-on. VNT is not fundamentally flawed. And it cannot stand alone; as Blueboar pointed out, there's no reason we can't have both VNT and the concise explanation that is necessary to explain it to the best of everyone's expectations. Doc   talk  00:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And the real problem at this point is the perpetual "under discussion" tag. This didn't used to be there. To accept that it will always be here until VNT is removed... really, really sad. Doc   talk  01:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate John Shandy's post but I respectfully submit that he has completely the point. IMHO persons that say the VNT is problematic will completely agree with he has just said, and then say that he has missed the point. IMHO a structural approach is required to understand the difference.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not help to say "he misses the point" unless you explain how he misses the point. Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I wanted to go for VNT with explanation, and I supported Blueboar's compromise. I still find that a desirable way forward. (I make no secret of the fact that I'm one of the many editors who find VNT a bit creepy, a lot ludicrous, and totally pompous, sanctimonious, and self-important. It's used by the ignorant and the arrogant as a slogan that tries to shut people down when they're genuinely trying to improve the encyclopaedia: it's a shortcut to avoid the need to actually engage with new editors in an intelligent way.  It attracts ridicule from people who really know what encyclopaedia writing is about.  In fact, VNT is craptastic in every possible way and what I really want is for it to be totally excised.  What I mean when I say Blueboar's compromise is an acceptable way forward is that it's the least crappy way forward.)  However, there's no getting around the fact that Blueboar's compromise does entail moving VNT out of the lede.  Putting VNT together with the full set of hedges and qualifiers that it needs all into the lede would violate UNDUE, in the sense that a ridiculously large proportion of the lede would be about VNT, when what we really need to do is reduce its prominence and mitigate its hatefulness a bit.— S Marshall  T/C 03:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Grey flag

 * Can we change that to "Blueboar's compromise did entail moving VNT out of the lede"... The compromise that I proposed in the RfC has been a dead horse for a while now... and, in the months since the RfC, I have made other suggestions (also attempts at compromise) that keep VNT in the lede. Blueboar (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict, responding only to Blueboar. He is basically repeating what everybody agrees with. Basically a policy that says that verifiability is an absolute requirement for inclusion.   What he is missing is the common misinterpretation which is that "accuracy NEVER matters and may NEVER never discussed" Not just that accuracy is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement, but that accuracy NEVER matters and may NEVER be discussed. The latter is a common deliberate mis-interpretation of VNT.  North8000 (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @ SMarshall & North8000 - If anyone is unwilling to compromise on this issue it is the two of you. Give up the eradication of VNT, or deal with the compromise. The two of you are perpetuating this nonsense way beyond what it should be. For quite some time. I'm not trying to shut either of you up: work with the rest of us. You will not get everything you desire out of this. Deal with it. Doc   talk  04:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand that, North8000, but it seems in turn you have missed the greater point I was making. Most of the educating of users on the concept of VNT is done by word of mouth in an ad hoc setting by seasoned editors, all over the place at any given article's talk page. I for one have never encountered this abhorrent phenomenon you speak of where accuracy is overlooked. Perhaps seasoned editors with policy familiarity could (and should) do a better job of communicating the policy, rather than relying on perfect verbiage to demystify WP:V for them. I see editors miscommunicating the core content policies all the time, but generally don't find myself in months-long entanglements debating the phrasing of such policies (this is a first for me). If the misinterpretation described by North8000 is so common, I'm puzzled as to why it is not so readily seen by the rest of us, or why it has yet to be demonstrated.


 * I've not ever had problems discussing the importance of accuracy in tandem with VNT. Sometimes, the accuracy of verifiable material is such that it should be included, and other times excluded. Conspiracists regularly visit the NWO (conspiracy theory) talk page and voice complaint about how the article contains a bunch of crazy views that aren't consistent with their own perception of the conspiracy theory. We have to point out to them that the alleged crazy views are verifiable, accurate accounts of what some conspiracists in particular believe, because they cling to their own flavor of views about a new world order (some think it's reptilian shape-shifters, others the illuminati, others the freemasons, etc.). All the time, we receive editors who want to exclude the shape-shifting reptilian humanoid views and include only the illuminati views, etc. Communicating the importance of verifiability in conjunction with accuracy has not been a problem thus far. Most of them understand and either make suggestions or, if they find WP:V renders a conflict within themselves, they leave. Nevertheless, the onus isn't on myself or others to demonstrate that it isn't a problem.


 * If the lack of emphasis on accuracy is your concern, then why remove VNT rather than, say... have something akin to "verifiability and accuracy, not truth" (terrible, and not what I'd suggest, because it sounds lame of course, but you can see the point).  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 06:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As well, S Marshall's opinions on VNT are all well and good, but they are only opinions. He has yet to demonstrate that his views of a grotesque nature underlying VNT hold any validity. I would argue that it's not a shortcut to avoid the need to engage with new editors intelligently, because editors will either accept WP:V or reject it based on whether they can personally accept it. Most of the editors I've encountered who rejected it ultimately had grave misconceptions about what an encyclopedia is in general, and what Wikipedia is in particular. They were editors who could not accept the tenets of WP:NOR in conjunction with WP:V, and ultimately found that personal blogs were the true medium they were looking for, where they could publish whatever they think and write off the cuff without concern for verifiability or accuracy. I don't think it's elitist to suggest that those kinds of people, with whom I have no quarrel, are not necessarily a loss to the project. They don't yet understand or don't agree with the very notion of articles which aim to merely characterize the available reliable literature on each topic (known to us as encyclopedia articles). We don't have to explain VNT in a rude way so as to make these people feel hurt in some way, if that's what's cause for concern (and I think any argument that the VNT verbiage is intrinsically rude or otherwise sanctimonious is baseless and weak if not absurd). People who understand what an encyclopedic work aims to do are people who understand what encyclopedia writing is about. Wikipedia is about that, but with a collaborative attitude. Nevertheless, standards can't be sacrificed for touchy-feely collaboration.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 06:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Throughout my time on this page, which is now nearing 18 months on the subject of VNT alone, there have been two techniques that pro-VNT editors have used to attack my position. The first is the one that Doc uses:- the attempt to portray mine as a minority position that has no chance of success. I believe that the RFC provides more than sufficient evidence to destroy that. Mine is in fact the mainstream position among the general populace of Wikipedians. The pro-VNT stance, however, is the mainstream one among editors who have this page watchlisted. The second is the one John Shandy` uses:- the attempt to place the onus probandi onto me, which is one that I have responded to several times. In fact, my starting point is that that position is flawed, because it asks me to prove a negative. In other words, it assumes that VNT is the ideal phrasing and asks me to show evidence of when it has caused a problem. In fact, it's not up to me to prove that. The burden of proof is on those making a positive claim, and it is therefore for John Shandy` and his fellows to show evidence that it is the best phrasing. I'll forestall two predictable lines of argument: first, the fact that VNT has been in the policy for a long time is not evidence that it is the best phrasing, because the fact that people have made a mistake for a long time does not mean it's less of a mistake. After all, the fact that people had believed in the geocentric universe for centuries did not make Galileo wrong. And secondly, VNT is not the consensus position. It has been unpopular since it was introduced, and it has been kept in this policy by means of serial reversion of those who want to get rid of it. You will not be able to show us an RFC that supports VNT remaining in the policy in its current form. Editors do not want it to appear there. In fact the most recent, large-scale RFC gives us an excellent mandate to decide how to replace VNT and this is what we should be focusing upon. The reason we are not is because pro-VNT editors are refusing to accept that there is a problem despite the RFC being as plain as your nose, and refusing to change position in the face of the clear evidence of what the community wants. I repeat my claim that nobody changes their mind about this on the basis of argument or evidence, and I repeat my call for a resolution via a simple majority vote.— S Marshall T/C 12:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have discovered a third technique, which is to stop caring. I'm pretty happy with what we have now. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Brown flag

 * I disagree that the large scale RfC gives a mandate to remove VNT... for a very simple reason: the RfC did not propose that VNT be removed. In fact, it explicitly retained VNT (although moved to a separate section).  The RfC was not about removing VNT... it was about a complex compromise that retained VNT, with an attempt to explain it.
 * Now, there was a majority that approved of this idea... not enough to claim consensus, but a clear majority. So... if the RfC gives us a mandate, it would be to continue in the direction of retaining VNT... and doing a better job of explaining what it means.  Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I think the RFC does clearly give us a mandate to remove VNT from the lede. This is evidenced by fact that the RFC succeeded outright, and was then overturned by bad-faith gamesmanship, which you personally witnessed and you personally expressed concern about,  in which an involved admin unilaterally reverted the close and re-advertised the RFC using non-neutral language just because she didn't like the outcome, and which finally brought it to a halt without quite succeeding.  I think the outcome was that VNT was found unacceptable in its present form but there was not quite sufficient consensus to implement your compromise. As a separate matter, I also think the "support" comments in the RFC strongly imply a mandate to remove VNT outright.— S Marshall  T/C 18:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Look through the comments again... About a third of the "support" comments mentioned dislike of having VNT as their reason to support... but about a third of the supporters explicitly said they supported because the proposal retained VNT, and clarified it (the other third cited different reasons for supporting, and did not mention VNT at all). So the support comments were actually quite mixed on that point.
 * However, the "opposed" comments were all but unanimous in saying that they opposed specifically because the proposal removed VNT from the lede. It was a constant refrain.  In other words, more people explicitly objected to removing VNT from the lede than explicitly supported doing so.
 * More importantly... whether we like it or not, a panel of admins determined that a ⅔ majority was not enough to claim a consensus. That determination isn't going to change.  So, if we want to actually achieve a consensus, those of us who see a need for change will have to make further compromises... by factoring what the opposers said into any future proposals we make.  And that means letting go of the idea of killing VNT outright... or removing VNT from the lede.  You don't have to like it, but the only way to achieve consensus is to retain VNT in the lede, and off-set any damage it does by better clarifying its intent.  That is blunt reality.  Please accept it. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the legit close was that it passed. Then the shenanigans started. Without recapping the painful blow-by-blow, what we determined that a large scale RFC is an absolutely dysfunctional approach. Some other way is needed here. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I didn't personally say my dislike of VNT was a reason to support. Why would I accept that you have to say it explicitly before it counts?  It's a bizarre notion.  I'll accept that VNT should remain in the lede when you show me a consensus to that effect, and I will not accept it until you show me a consensus to that effect.  I repeat my call to make this a separate question as part of the next RFC: Do you want VNT (a) to remain in the lede, (b) to appear in a separate paragraph that explains it, or (c) to be removed entirely, with the outcome determined by simple majority vote. Editors do not change their minds on this issue, so my suggestion is the only real way to ending this nearly endless dispute.— S Marshall  T/C 19:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What originally dragged me into VNT discussions only briefly a while back, was an editor who mistakenly accused me of deliberately misinterpreting VNT to halt the insertion of sourced content (it was backed with primary sources), when all I was attempting to do was halt synthesis of those primary sources. The editor thrust it into the VNT discussions as some example of why VNT is evil and how I was using it to retain inaccurate yet verifiable content in the article, and without even reading the article's talk page or bothering to understand the complexities of my debate on synthesis with that editor, other VNT participants simply swallowed his account and built it into their subsequent arguments against VNT. So, am I meant to think that if VNT is removed, then misunderstandings will be vaccinated and I won't have to deal with such an event again? I have felt that misinterpretations are largely a problem with editors rather than the existence of the VNT verbiage. That's not to say I don't think the text can be improved, but this dispute seems to be ignoring the reality that in the long run, many editors are going to misconstrue policy in unfathomable ways. With regards to the burden of proof, one can readily count the positive assertions you have made about VNT (not to mention how subjective and immeasurable they are - sanctimonious?). I don't consider VNT the best, but it works and I would rather not throw the baby out with the bath water in a misguided attempt to deter editor behavior that will persist even if VNT were removed. I'm certainly not closed to the idea that better verbiage through compromise is within reach though. At any rate, I apologize if it seems I have stormed in to stir up a hornet's nest, but I think there are overlooked consequences of viewing policy as only a deterrent and not a tool for resolving WP:V conflicts in context through BRD discussions on article talk pages. I simply wished to voice this concern.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 19:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The example you mentioned might be useful for editors here to look at, for WP:V and WP:NOR work. Could you give a link to it? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I prefer not to dredge it up as it was nauseating enough the first go around, but it can be found deep in the archives/history of WP:V/First sentence (around Sep. or Oct. 2011 or so), and some relevant material in the archives for Talk:Conspiracy theory. The incident is less important than the point, because other people have cited other incidents of misinterpretation. My point though is that these all appear to be problems with editors clashing, as they most likely will without the VNT phrase. Editors assign undue weight and give equal validity despite UNDUE and GEVAL in NPOV; editors synthesize sources despite SYNTH in NOR. Editors will include/exclude content based on their perception of truth or their cling to verifiability, with or without VNT in V. At least in resolving issues regarding undue weight, equal validity, and synthesis, we have UNDUE, GEVAL, and NPOV at our disposal. VNT hasn't become its own section, and on some level I don't care whether it becomes its own or not, but I do prefer having it emphasized in the lede, even if a thorough explanation of it need be housed in a separate section.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 08:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your response to the request for a link to the example, "I prefer not to dredge it up as it was nauseating enough the first go around..." may affect your credibility. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Gray flag

 * John Shandy, the situation which you are talking about appears to be the central statement of wp:ver and one where everybody already agrees that wp:ver is very clear. I.E.  not an example of what folks are saying are the common mis-interpretations. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bob, with a few clicks and a simple CTRL+F for my name on the V/First sentence archives, you yourself could find this link. North8000, whether misinterpretations or allegations of misinterpretations, however common or uncommon, I haven't been given a good reason to think that perfect policy text will in any way deter any of these. Regardless, S Marshall seems quite correct in that people won't change positions on this, so I won't try to convince anyone of anything. I like Blueboar's suggestion below and think it is worthwhile to consider.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 19:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. I wasn't debating you, just trying to clarify that one point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bold(?) reordering of the lead sentences
Hopefully no one thinks it's a major change, but it bugs me when sentences don't follow each other logically, so I've reordered the lead paragraph. Objections? LK (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If I actually thought it made much difference, I'd revert what you did. Because it might be a step towards some sort of compromise, where we can remove the embarrassing and useless tag. But if it's only a step towards elimination of VNT... meh. I'd personally have no problem with VNT as the last sentence, as long as it remained bolded and in the lede. But that's not good enough either. If I have to do some serious homework on this issue, I will. Every new thread that is started in order to re-invigorate this non-issue is there. The RfC cannot be simply ignored, and the arguments that support constantly revisiting this issue actually border on WP:FRINGE - there's no proof that this misunderstanding is actually commonplace. Doc   talk  10:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, Doc; although the edit did place VnT more prominently in the lede, closer to where it belongs; and it does actually makes the same if not slightly better sense than what Marshall reverted to. Dreadstar  ☥   17:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Argh, reverted, without any discussion on less. Dreadstar, Doc9871, can I take it that you both agree with my ordering? Can I reintroduce this presumably minor change? LK (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As to why it makes more sense the way I had it, right now, it goes: 'Definition. Clarification of Rule. Rule.' Obviously, it should read: 'Definition. Rule. Clarification of Rule.' If there are no arguments the other way, I'm going to revert it back. LK (talk) 09:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert it. VNT is not the rule; WP:VNT is a different page.  This page is WP:V.  It should go: Definition of verifiability → what it means.  Random crap that really belongs in NOR and should use less stupid language anyway but because at one RFC, 31% of editors want it where it is, we're never allowed to take it out of the first paragraph of the lede until the end of time, can go at the far end of the paragraph.— S Marshall  T/C 11:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(old moved subsection) Lets take this somewhere
I've seen many good proposals here in the last 30 days. Most only slightly address what IMHO is the core issue, but there have been many improvements proposed nevertheless. I'm supportive of these efforts but it's hard to figure out where it's at and where it's going. We should come up with a process that moves decisively forward. Might I suggest a process that identifies the core issues and priorities of the folks active here, work out something guided by that that 3/4 of them agree is OK and somewhat resolves the big open issues, and then put it in. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here would be my proposed question:
 * Regarding potentially making or avoiding changes related to the first paragraph, what are your top priorities? Please state them directly and succinctly.  Do not include arguments in favor of those at this time.
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would anybody think it a bad I idea for me to make a concerted (= stubborn) effort to carry the above poll/question though to fruition? North8000 (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds good. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  08:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to the future, 2004-style

 * I look to the explanation that Slim Virgin gave when she first invented the phrase "Verifiability, not Truth" and added it to a draft version of WP:NOR, back on 8 Dec. 2004. NewbyG  ( talk) 16:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so here goes: Statements of Priorities
Regarding potentially making or avoiding changes related to the first paragraph, what are your top priorities? Please state them directly and succinctly, but use enough words to do that. Feel free to edit/update your wording afterwards. Do not include any discussion or comments on comments in the main priority section. Do not include arguments in favor of those at this time. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

North8000 My priorities are North8000 (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * to have the verifiability requirement (as defined in the rest of the policy) remain very very strong
 * Reduce the widespread (what most would call) mis-interpretations and mis-uses of the policy. The two most common types of mis-interpretations/mis-uses are #1 To say that this policy says that verifiability is a force for inclusion of material rather than just a requirement for inclusion of material.  #2 That it says that accuracy is always irrelevant and excludable from all conversations.  We all agree that accuracy is irrelevant with respect to waiving the verifiability requirement.  But the mis-interpretation goes beyond that to say that it is irrelevant in all other areas as well.  For example, that people may cite wp:ver to exclude "accuracy" from conversations about leaving out material.  I think that the three words in wp:ver that contribute most to the problem are "not truth" and the ambiguity of the word "threshold".   While I would prefer to see "not truth" to be totally gone, IMHO some wording that clarifies it with respect to the above would be a workable compromise.

Doc9871 My priorities are: Doc  talk  13:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To compromise on the disputed wording to a certain extent; but to not disregard the RfC, or the serious lack of evidence for absolute removal of VNT.
 * To curtail the needless retooling of WP:V exercised for no appropriate reason other than to ultimately remove VNT; and to remove the "under discussion" tag. The curtailing possibly includes seeking measures that could potentially affect who can and cannot participate in this process. That will be up to the community.

Newbyguesses


 * No personal priorities at all. I may leave this page entirely, come back in a year or so, and then check to see if anyone remembers what all the fuss was about. Oh, wait, the same debate will probably be going on. Different hampsters,  same treadmill. I am sure there will be some slight improvements though, and one year is a long time, just like one second is a long time in Wikipediaspace, especially if ‘’something is wrong on the internet’’. Cheers, best of luck to all.  NewbyG  ( talk) 15:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar My priorities are
 * Clarify the policy in general, and VNT in particular - without changing its meaning (where we disagree on meaning, I look to original intent - to understand what the original meaning and intent was, I look to the explanation that Slim Virgin gave when she first invented the phrase "Verifiability, not Truth" and added it to a draft version of WP:NOR, back on 8 Dec. 2004. This was, in my opinion, a long winded version of the current injunction at WP:NOR that says: "If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere your a discovery."  Shifting this to a WP:V context, it means: Don't add unverifiable material, even if you know it to be true.)
 * Find consensus language that will make it less likely that editors will misunderstand the original intent of VNT (this applies to both actual and potential misunderstanding).
 * Resolve the concerns of editors on both sides of this debate.
 * Retain the current language of VNT if possible... replace it with something very similar if not (the meaning of VNT is more important to me than the exact words).
 * Refocus the paragraph more on the concept of "Verifiability", and less on the concept of "inclusion". Granted, the two concepts are intertwined, and thus we can not discuss verifiability without discussing inclusion... However, since this is the Verifiability policy (and not the inclusion policy), I believe the lede should focus more on explaining verifiability and less on explaining inclusion.  I believe recent changes have brought us about 85% towards this goal.  Blueboar (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

S Marshall My priorities are I'd also like to finish this process before I die of old age. :)— S Marshall T/C 17:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Find out what the majority of editors really want to do, and implement that. The fact is that we haven't had a simple RFC that asks Wikipedians what they think.  All we've had are RFCs that seek editors' approval for specific measures for bright ideas that we've come up with on this page.  Note that I'm not asking to implement the consensus, because I do not believe a consensus is possible about this; editors won't change their minds.  I think we should settle for a simple majority.
 * 2) If compatible with the first point, remove the words "not truth" from the policy and replace with something less utterly stupid.
 * 3) If compatible with the first point, replace the words "the threshold" with something more precise.
 * 4) If compatible with the first point, increase the focus on copyright which I've already introduced. I want to use the example to show that while it's important to follow the sources, it's also important not to follow them so closely that you breach their copyright.  Articles shouldn't be built the way he did, by copypasta and close paraphrasing.  I'd like to say, "While it's important to follow sources, don't follow them off a cliff."
 * 5) Generally rephrase the policy to use the active voice rather than the passive, and the simple imperative. I want WP:V to sound more immediate.  Less abstract musings along the lines of "all articles must have property x", and more direct instructions to editors along the lines of "always do x".

LeadSongDog My priorities are quite simple:
 * 1) Simplify the language so that even the high school students will be able to grasp it quickly and so that native-English undergrad editors will grasp it on first reading. The time of editors is precious, we shouldn't squander it on re-re-re-reading badly written policy. This will be hard to do, but it is worth doing.
 * 2) Adopting a tone which is informative, describing best practices. Prescriptive tone just fuels wikilawyering while showing disrespect for volunteer editors.
 * 3) Preserve the underlying intent of the policy: If anonymous editors are to build a quality encyclopedia, cited sources are indispensible. The rest is simply explanation that there are sometimes practical reasons why we make exceptions. LeadSongDog come howl!  20:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion & Requests for clarification
Request: Doc, could you clarify what you mean should not be disregarded from the RFC? Thanks North8000 (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure. The result of the RfC, which stated there was no consensus to implement that change. Now, we all know this is about removing VNT. I have no problem seeing it removed if that's what the community wants: I can't always get what I want, and if the majority of editors want it gone, I lose. I don't see its removal as being so crucial, and never have. To hold this paragraph hostage with the "under discussion" tag until VNT is removed (with no other option being considered) is just a war of attrition. It will not end until VNT is removed, and there accordingly can be no end to these continuing voluminous discussions. Is it because it is so broken? Or is it because it's time to compromise for real? Doc   talk  06:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - While S Marshall and I are diametrically opposed as to our opinions on VNT, we both are in complete agreement about one thing, I think. Make the next RfC (should it go there) absolutely VNT removal/retain specific. Must it go because it does irreparable harm even when explained, or Should it stay? There's no other point to this endlessness except for that one issue. When one side inevitably loses (and it could certainly be mine just as well as yours), it's time to shut up about this for good. Doc   talk  06:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Request: Blueboar, could you clarify what you mean here/in this context when you say "meaning" / "original intent"? Thanks North8000 (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you asking for my definition of the words "meaning" and "original intent"? (in which case... see a dictionary) Or are you asking me to outline what I think the meaning and original intent of VNT is/was? Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The second, but on the specifics that you had in mind when you wrote that, preferably with your statement. If you wish.  Thanks. North8000 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Done (see above) - hope that helps. Blueboar (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! North8000 (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarification, Newbyguesses. In line with comments above, I forget to say that the words on the project page seem about 90- 95 percent correct in reflecting what is probably current policy, as determined by the consensus of editors on all pages (pages I have looked at is strictly all I can say). I can honestly say, that the phrase "verifiability not truth", though nonsensical from a philosophical viewpoint, has never interfered with my grasp of editing policy. If the phrase means something to someone, anyone, then, without going deeply into the prickly issues the indiscriminate use of the "word" truth stirs up, then it is doing a good enough job in the lede. NewbyG  ( talk) 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

S Marshall, I am not accusing you of doing this, but please see our policy regarding No personal attacks, and I point to sentence number 2: Comment on content, not on the contributor. We're not here to make an "example" of people. Please try to respect that principle. — Ched : ?  18:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ched, I know you weren't accusing me, but I want to be 100% clear that I said the content was stupid. I did not describe an editor as stupid.— S Marshall  T/C 19:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think what Ched means is that we don't use a person as an example for a policy; and doing so is unnecessary. I think it would be the right thing to do if you just removed the name and referred to the concept.  I realize this is the current-events broughaha that's sure to spark attention and raise emotions, but really, is it necesaary here?  What you're doing by naming names is indeed to comment on the contributor I ask you kindly to remove the name and let that colourful issue be discussed elsewhere.  Dreadstar  ☥   21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * S Marshall, I'm viewing this as a quick version of the general RFC that you are suggesting. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * being a pretty passive -and not very observant- observer of this talk, and someone who has seen the value of VNT (mainly in the way that it sticks in the mind due to it's counter-intuitive/paradoxical connotation) if we (the community) decide that in this instance accuracy/simplicity trumps meme/memorability,then to me the wording should be something like 'verifiability, not merely truth'. (addendum 11:25) To be clear, I believe that a phrase like VNT has a very important purpose, and yet, in it's current form, there is no consensus. I do not see abandoning it as being an option, and an RfC that focuses on shifting community consensus on this phrase must focus on a positive, memorable, succinct and equable phrase that replaces VNT with consensus. Something like VNMT could be championed in an RFC, but a proposal to remove VNT alone, I believe, will never manage to gain consensus.  I believe that WP:V editors here have to close the VNT debate ASAP, inorder to get on with the rest of their lives and the remainder of the WP:V policy. 20040302 (talk) 10:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's take this somewhere
I think that the "priorities" poll gives a good sampling (just a sampling) of what the folks active here think. I think that some interesting notes emerge in a summary:

Only one specific area of contention came up which is "not truth". There is no solution that gives everyone what they want, but there may be one that the vast majority can live with. There is a second possible specific area of contention could be between a desire to change "threshold" (as ambiguous) and folks that might say that terms should be left as-is. But, aside from that, folks are just talking about improving it in areas that have not been areas of contention. Also, there seems to be a consensus on what the original intent of VNT was and that that is what it should be. Specifically (only) to bolster the verifiability requirement. This is what I've been calling the "95%" viewpoint.

As a vague overview, my thought is to reach a compromise on the contentious areas, and then consider the big issue to be somewhat settled (including taking the "under discussion" tag off)   And then leave the other non-contentious "general improvement" topics for routine discussion. More specifically:


 * work out a clearer substitute for "threshold" that 3/4 of active folks here will not object to and just put it in.


 * On "not truth" add wording that clearly limits interpretations of it to the original intent of VNT ("original intent" as discussed in the poll responses,) and just put it in.  My suggestion for this would be adding the sentence " "Not truth" in this policy means that truth is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement". But there could be other ideas that do this. Then leave VNT in as it is today, and consider that we agree to (as long as the new wording stays) to not deprecate, elevate or eliminate it for a long time.


 * After the above two are done, take the "under discussion" tag off. This solves the areas that have been of contention.  After that thee would be just routine improvement-type discussions on the areas that people have raised.

What do y'all think?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds to me like a reasonable course of action. I do take note of the sensible comment above made by (User:20040302 AT 10:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC))!!  NewbyG  ( talk) 19:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it says it very well. Darn, just when we have a plan along comes a really good idea to mess it up.  :-)  But seriously, the most relevant opinions on that would be the folks who like VNT as-is, because it would be a change there. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The bit after the hyphen - from the stand point of meaning and intent
OK... We currently explain VNT with the clause: Olive's attempts at correcting the syntax and grammar have caused me to look at this sentence again, from the stand point of meaning.
 * " - whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think <it/the unverifiable material/some other term> is true"

I think part of the confusion over VNT in general stems from this clause. The problem is that the clause talks about the material/information as if it has already been added to Wikipedia. However, VNT is supposed to apply to information/material that has not yet been added to Wikipedia. It was originally intended to be an injunction against adding unverifiable material in the first place. VNT makes a lot more sense when it is applied to the actions of the editor before he adds some bit of material... it makes less sense when you try to apply it to the reader who is checking the material after it has been added.

Could we explore ideas for clarifying this? Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It was originally intended to be an injunction against adding unverifiable material in the first place.


 * I'd say that actually it is a process which identifies material that can potentially  be added... It is inclusive, not exclusive. Out of the pool of all material that potentially can be added we are suggesting a initial threshold process for identifying and including that which is appropiate for Wikipedia=Verifiability.(olive (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC))

That's an incomplete view of V and VnT. WP:V has evolved since it was spun off from NOR. VnT doesn't just apply to unincluded, unsourced material; it applies to sourced material as well - included or not. An editor cannot just look at a source or sourced material and say "that's not true" and remove it, then cite V claiming 'truth' applies to only unsourced material. VnT means that editors like you and me don't decide if what reliable source says is true or not, we follow the sources and it is other reliable sources that would provide content that says whether or not something is true. I think it would lead to further misunderstandings and twists by POV pushers who would say, “Well V tells me that I can’t add material that is unsourced just because I think it’s true, but I can remove or exclude any material - sourced or not - because I think it’s untrue”. The current wording of VnT says it concisely and clearly, there's no need to change it. I think it should actually go back to the beginning of the lede sentence. Dreadstar ☥   21:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's absolute nonsense. We have several policies that tell editors that they have to assess whether something verifiably published is true before they add it to an article. We cannot have policies contradicting each other on such fundamental matters. If you don't like it, Dreadstar, work to get WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:REDFLAG removed from Wikipedia's rule book, remove everything from WP:IRS that asks editors to assess the reliability of a published source for a specific statement, and have WP:MEDRS demoted to essay. Then come back here and try again. Cheers. -- J N  466  22:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dreadstar, the way to counter any POV pushers of the ilk you mention is to ask them to read WP:DUE. Different policy. -- J N  466  22:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not nonsense at all. An editor cannot just look at a source or sourced material and say "that's not true" and remove it, then cite V claiming 'truth' applies to only unsourced material. Right, we don't want that sort of thing happening. We do want to exclude the beliefs of editors on truth or falsity from the equation, but we need to word this so that the each editor realizes for /emself what is required. We have several policies that tell editors that they have to assess whether something verifiably published is published by a reliable source, *relevant* (ie WP:UNDUE), does not infringe copyrite, and is not defaming a living person... before they add it to an article. Beliefs of editors, or *Truth*tm does not come into it at all. But if the editor gets it wrong, it is corrected by the next editor, whether that involves modification,or a total revert depends on the particular edit in question.  NewbyG  ( talk) 22:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Last time I looked, copyrite was spelled copyright. I don't think it has changed since then.) Of course an editor can't just say, "I don't believe it", and remove sourced material. Who said that they could? Such material is protected by WP:NPOV, the first sentence of which says, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." There is absolutely no need to twist WP:V into something it was never meant to say to prevent editors from deleting sourced material. -- J N  466  01:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, in an Article I would spell it Copyright, on a talk page I prefer to spell copyrite. Umm, don't think I would ever want to use the word nonsense referring to a good faith contribution, maybe that's just I. NewbyG  ( talk) 04:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Red flag

 * What he says is basically true: only RS can decide if other RS are true or false. The beliefs of editors should not come into play, except if there is a red flag, in which case they should find other RS to confirm or disconfirm.  However, VnT says something about the threshold for inclusion, but it ought to say something about inclusion and exclusion.  That's why my preferred version says that only RS can decide if material is included or excluded, not the beliefs of editors.  You notice that REDFLAG is titled Exceptional claims require exceptional sources not Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.  It thus explicitly excludes the beliefs of editors on truth or falsity from the equation, except in that they may notice that the flag is red.  I do wish people would consider that rephrase of VnT, because maybe I'm just fooling myself, but I think it covers all the bases from both sides of this debate.  Gets rid of VnT, but strengthens the policy.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We in general are talking about different things, about this policy from different levels and different views, and the way to understand that is to be patient until each can explain fully. I assume we are all trying to improve this policy. Some are attempting to maintain the policy as is, feeling it works, others feel it doesn't work and are trying to change it. I actually thought this discussion was going somewhere in a peaceful way. (olive (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC))> (olive (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC))

@Jayen, I think you misunderstand; V is the threshold for inclusion, all those other policies and guidelines you mention are for specific cases for inclusion/exclusion. The three core content policies work in harmony, and should not be interpreted in isolation from one another and there is necessarily some overlap. WP:V needs to make it clear what the threshold for inclusion is, beyond that the other policies kick in to establish content guidance. I agree with you that whether sourced material should be in the article or not is a matter for WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:IRS, etc, but V necessarily establishes the threshold for inclusion. None of the other policies or guidelines come into play at all unless the content meets the WP:V threshold. I'm certainly not looking to get rid of or demote any of the things you linked to, so calm down. Dreadstar ☥   23:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And just to be clear, I'm defending the status-quo, long-standing wording of VnT, I'm not trying anything. Please.  Dreadstar  ☥   00:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus, how often do we have to go through this. Please read Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_55. Your wording enables anyone who has a source to back some content up to wikilawyer till doomsday that it must remain in the article, because "whether editors think it is true does not matter". So we can scrap the reliable sources noticeboard, can we?
 * WP:BLPGOSSIP, which says,
 * Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.
 * is now directly contradicted by WP:V, which says
 * 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.
 * WP:REDFLAG says,
 * Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources ... reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended.
 * But that is now also directly contradicted by the first para of WP:V:
 * 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
 * How can we assess REDFLAG criteria like "a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended" if "whether editors think it is true" does not matter? Who will make this assessment, if not editors? God?
 * Who will make the assessment "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject"? Do you want to expose every editor who follows this policy and makes this assessment to the likelihood that some smart Alec comes along and quotes your "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" back at them? Do you think it is somehow equitable to write policy in such a way that everyone will be able to quote a bit of policy that backs their POV up, so arguments can basically go round in circles forever?
 * What Verifiability not Truth means is very simple. It means it is not enough to assert something UNSOURCED is true, it has to be verifiable in a published source. That's it. "Verifiability not truth" has nothing to say about published but untrue material, and it is certainly not its job to imply, or make any novice editor believe, that anything verifiably published must remain in an article, regardless of what WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:REDFLAG, WP:IRS, WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV or WP:RSN have to say about it. -- J  N  466  01:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but don't call me Jesus. I've said nothing that says "anything and everything verifiable should be or has to be included" - anyone who claims I've said that is sorely mistaken; I've merely said that VnT is the threshold for inclusion, not the single key that guarantees inclusion.  I'll say it again, Jayen, VnT is the threshold - the beginning, the cusp of inclusion, every policy or guideline you name is additional filtering to keep out or modify everything in the universe from being added in ways that promote a POV or provide a false impresssion of the views on a subject. You personally do not get to decide what is true and what is false and what is to be included in Wikipedia, period. V doesn't mandate what REDFLAG says, REDFLAG modifies or removes anything that passes V but violates REDFLAG. The policies work together and are not to be used in isolation from one another.


 * Your interpretation of what I'm saying about VnT totally ignores the fact that we have not only more to V, but three core content policies that in addition act like layers for content inclusion. It’s like the OSI model for networking.  VnT is like layer 1, the physical layer that determines if a data packet meets the threshold for inclusion in the device’s system.  Your argument is going to layer 6 or 7, “well what if we don't want that content in our report, VnT  (layer 1) says we have to include it”.  No it doesn’t!  Each layer determines what is in the final presentation.  Just because layer 1 admits it to the system, doesn’t mean layer 7 has to include it.

Green flag

 * VnT doesn't mandate inclusion, it is the threshold for inclusion, there's a major difference there. VnT does indeed say that verifiable content in reliable sources can be included, but once that threshold had been met, it must follow the other content policies and guidelines. Don't tell me that you personally can exclude something published by a reliable source just because you personally think it's untrue.  That is only established by the other policies you mention, including the rest of V.  And no, it's not just unsourced OR, that would be strictly in the venue of WP:NOR.  We spun this off for a reason and added VnT for a reason and it wasn't just for OR - it was to try and keep individual and small groups of editors from being the arbiters of truth and content.  You don't get to do that.Dreadstar  ☥   01:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And um, if you indeed can personally exclude something published by a reliable source just because you personally think it's untrue, then email me privately...I have some ideas...and some extra cash, wink, wink, nod, nod, eh? :)  Dreadstar  ☥   01:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, VnT doesn't mandate inclusion, but saying things mandate inclusion seems to be the misunderstanding of the day. Everything seems to break down on this policy, except in that we were able to straighten some of the lead wording out.  Maybe we need to do a rewrite not to include in the article, but to hash out what we think the policy should say.  Then rewrite things here.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your talk about layer 1 and layer 7 sounds very nice, but unfortunately the policies aren't numbered. "Threshold" is commonly interpreted as "that which gets material into Wikipedia". You may say there are another six layers, but where does the policy say that? It doesn't. Layer 1 should not actively contradict layer 7. Of course when to exclude something published in a reliable source is not a matter for my personal belief. But it is an argument that is had every single day at RSN and to a lesser extent at BLPN and other noticeboards. Every single discussion at RSN begins with an editor posting a source which that "editor thinks may not be true". It's a consideration that forms an integral part of what we are doing here, and has done for the past ten years. -- J N  466  01:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jayen466, "Who will make the assessment "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject"? The other reliable sources will: if you have a redflag, that's only because other RS have informed you that such things are suspect.  How else?  The alternate is pure consciousness operating without reference.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How do I know that the other sources are reliable, that the material they present is true and relevant? Or is it turtles all the way down? --FormerIP (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's turtles all the way to "the Professor said so." IOW, people with degrees say the sources are reliable, and Wikipedia accepts that without question.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ask other editiors at WP:RSN. Dreadstar  ☥   02:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that, every time an editor wants to add something to WP, they need to find a source, then a bunch of sources indicating one way or another whether the first source is reliable, then post an RSN (?). Where other editors will, presumably, somehow give an answer, but without making any judgement about the sources. --FormerIP (talk) 02:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Jayen, there's no contradiction, Layer 1 says you can include it, not must. It's very clear in V that there are three core content policies, you can't just ignore NPOV or OR because V says something you cherry pick out.  I'd like to see some statistics on the misinterpretation that the current wording of VnT is the end-all, be-all of content inclusion.  Evidence has been asked for many times, but is sorely lacking.  Dreadstar  ☥   02:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Blue flag

 * Your wording makes it "must", and that is how POV pushers would have others interpret it. Here a real-life example where this sort of argument was employed: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive89. Note repeated references to WP:V. The source was the Guardian. -- J N  466  02:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly don't edit BLPs a lot. At least I hope you don't. You get bizarre claims about living people, based on anonymous sources, in newspapers like the Daily Mail, and the problem is precisely that there are no other sources. The criterion is, rather, a negative one: if a purported fact is only covered in a paper like the Daily Mail, citing an anonymous source, you don't include it. Equally, you may get a report on a cure for cancer in a newspaper, and it is very evident from the absence of any reporting in academic journals, and the absence of any data, that it is balderdash. -- J N  466  02:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Which policy would you say keeps that out or modifies it? Dreadstar  ☥   02:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said – WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:REDFLAG, WP:MEDRS, WP:IRS, WP:RSN, and others. -- J N  466  02:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And Like I Said, not-V. It's a filter past Vnt for content.  Dreadstar  ☥   02:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It won't work as a filter past Vnt if Vnt expressly contradicts it. -- J N  466  02:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another good one is when a corner in a newspaper devoted to "fun facts" copies said "fun facts" from Wikipedia, and said "fun facts" are conspicuous by their lack of documentation anywhere else. That sort of thing is usually spotted by Wikipedians, who then "think the information in the reliable source is not true". Especially when they can see the info in question was added three years ago without a source by User:Dontgiveafeck. WP:CIRCULAR depends on editors making that assessment. -- J N  466  02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And V should handle that? Dreadstar  ☥   02:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your wording literally forbids editors from making that assessment. -- J N  466  02:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It most certainly does not. It's my my wording, it's long-standing policy. Surely there's some part of policy somewhere that takes care of undocumented 'fun facts', or is there not?  Editors just do it?  Looks like Vnt is just the threshold and those layers you keep mentioning over and over (WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:REDFLAG, WP:MEDRS, WP:IRS, WP:RSN, and others.} filter out and modify the content per their own focus.  It makes perfect sense that way.  No way VnT overrides that. And how widespread is it that Wikipedia is used as a source by reliabe sources, then Wikipedia uses those sources for Wikipeida articles?  Is that a lot?  Maybe it needs a guideline of its own.  Oh wait, it's already Policy!, and it doesn't seem to contradict VnT at all!  Thank goodness that's covered.  Whew!  Dreadstar  ☥   02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)  Dreadstar  ☥   02:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is your wording now, because you restored it, after it was gone for weeks. And your wording very clearly says that "whether editors think it is true" does not matter for what gets to be in Wikipedia. So if you think e.g. (1) some info was cribbed from Wikipedia, (2) lacked sourcing to begin with when it was entered here, by an unreliable user, and (3) therefore is quite possible not true, then I can tell you to just go away, because it is still "verifiable" in a so-called "reliable source" and "what editors think doesn't matter". I gave a specific example above, and it was no laughing matter for the BLP subjects involved. -- J N  466  02:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was changed without consensus, so it's not my wording. But feel free to keep repeating that fiction. VnT is the threshold, WP:CIRCULAR modifies that.  I never said it was a laughing matter for the BLP subjects involved, and how dare you imply that.  I've endured several of your attacks on me here, and I'll have no more of it.  Dreadstar  ☥   02:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You said there had never been evidence ... I gave you an example, various people listed as Scientologists, in an no-byline "diversion" in The Guardian's TV programme section, and at least in a number of cases the info was crap. And yet editors insisted "it's verifiable in The Guardian" and "we are not to wonder why". You have made no response. According to you, should we still be listing Gloria Gaynor as a Scientologist then, because Jimbo, me and a half a dozen other editors "thinking the information in the Guardian wasn't true" doesn't have any impact on that info passing our threshold for inclusion? There are any number of sources out there claiming Will Smith and Jada Pinkett-Smith are Scientologists, Kevin Spacey is gay, or WP:OTTO has eaten Kate Middleton's earrings. There is zero need for a statement in the WP:V lead that says editors of this site will suffer it to host information, incl. information about living people, that they collectively think is false. They do not. -- J N  466  03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are just a few example. There are lot's of legitimate reasons for editors to leave out material. To starte with, anythign precluded by other policies and guidlines. Also relevancy, length, usefulness for the article etc.. And yes, if the editors decide that something is questionable, implausible in error, or probably in error, they can decide to not use it. 99.9999999999% of all of the material in the world is "left out" of any given article; so leaving something out is routine. North8000 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah, and like I Said, VnT doesn't mandate content, other parts of policy take care of what your'e talking about.. Dreadstar ☥

White flag
Statement > does it have a source? > yes > is the source reliable? > do academics say it's reliable? > yes  > then it's reliable so > do other sources contradict it? > no  > do the majority of sources sources confirm it? > yes  > include it. Anything left out? Anything up to the judgment of editors? Lots of permutations, but it's the same system, and no beliefs of editors in there. Jayen466, in your "fun facts" case, there is no editorial judgment except to ask if the original source is academically reliable. If it's Wikipedia, then it's not and therefore the source is unreliable. Simple, no editorial judgment required. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 02:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dreadstar, I have the same interpretation of your position as Jayen466. So for clarification of your position, it would help if you answered the following question regarding  "not whether editors think it is true." Does this mean that editors can not exclude verifiable sourced material if they think it is not true? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

Why don't you answer my question? Dreadstar ☥   02:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (I wasn't aware of your question on the other thread, so I just answered it now.)
 * You could be more clear to me if you answered my question. It's easy, isn't it? For example, just a simple yes or no would work. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for anwering my question, sorry if you didn't see it. My position is that VnT is the threshold for inclusion, but not a guarantee.  If editors find a reliable source that some of them believe is false information and others do not, it cannot be excluded based on what some editors think.  BUT! If the reliable source has false information in it, then the other parts of Policy and guideline that must be always be applied will take care of that.  For example if information in a reliable newspaper is merely repeating unsourced content that was published in Wikipedia, WP:CIRCULAR takes care of that.  Dreadstar  ☥   03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some agreement there between you, me and JN466. What if an editor showed with OR that some verifiable sourced material was false and no one disputed the correctness of the OR. Does "not whether editors think it is true" mean that the material can not be excluded? --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hell, Bob, I don't even understand your question. Perhaps you should rephrase. Dealing with reliabily sourced falsehood is a wide area, from the Apollo moon landing hoax to a typo in the New York Times, there's no silver bullet that addresses the range between those to poles. Dreadstar  ☥   22:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Hell, Bob" — I guess that's a term of endearment? Time to chill. Bye, --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What? Um, no, I didn't say "Go to hell, Bob" or "You belong in Hell"....the way I used it is a term of total mystification; "Gosh, Bob, I don't undestand what the hell you asked!".  Where is an editor using some undisputed OR to show something is false?  What does that mean?  OR in the article?  I just don't understand your question, Bob, it's that simple.  It wasn't some kind of curse.  Yeah, I think we all need to chill on this subject, it's beyond ridiculous now.  Dreadstar  ☥   23:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Another little quibble, grammar-wise, on the first sentence
The first sentence on the project page currently begins ‘’Verifiabilty is the ability...’’ All well and good,  I think we can see what is meant. Grammar–wise though, Verifiability is *not* an ability that can be possessed by editors, it is an *attribute* which is *possessed* by the material. I have no alternative wording in mind, so I’ll leave it as is, I don’t think it matters much, except one or two editors with finicky dispositions (like mine) may find it jarring, a little. NewbyG ( talk) 20:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. I made a change reflecting this grammar but it was left behind somewhere. I'l see if I can find it.(olive (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC))


 * This:

"Verifiability on Wikipedia is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. "

Could be this:

"Verifiability on Wikipedia means that the information in an article must be supported by reliable sources."

I'm not commenting on the appropriateness of the sentence itself. This is an example syntax and grammar change only.(olive (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC))

Exceptional edit
I'm reverting the following edit because it does not appear to have been based on any consensus:

Immediately after the above edit was made, it was reverted at:

Then Wifione put it back in again at:

Wifione is trying to add the following sentence in the Exceptional claims section:
 * "Any such claim not backed by multiple high-quality sources should be removed immediately."

I could not find any discussion here or in the archives about a consensus as to the addition of that language. Nor could I find anything at User_talk:Dicklyon or at User talk:Wifione/Archive 2012 (January). How did that happen? I was looking for guidance on a particular situation about a claim in an article which seemed exceptional and wanted to know the best way to flag it. I found this policy statement with the above sentence in it, and I thought that it was inconsistent with other Wikipedia policies I had read. When I tried to research it, all I could find were the above edits. So I am removing the edit and asking for an explanation.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  21:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been re-added (by me) but slightly softened. Or maybe I softened it too much. What do *all* read into it now? NewbyG  ( talk) 23:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It didn't take into account that some sources maybe be attributed. What you need to note is that exceptional claims when stated in the voice of Wikipedia require exceptional sources, but exceptional claims made by notable people/organizations need only be notable and attributed and put in context. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The new language fought over today is redundant to the first sentence in the section: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Jc3s5h (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really. For a start, nothing is being *fought over* here today. And removing redundancy is not a silver bullet exercise, some restatement is sometimes valuable and necessary. Policies must be read in conjunction, one with another also. And “we do include false things. It is right that Wikipedia has articles on Bigfoot, creationism, moon landing conspiracy theories, and perpetual motion machines".  Wikipedia content should 'not' be written so as to ‘’’convey the beliefs of its editors’’’. What matters is that when we're covering something false, we use *appropriate language*.  NewbyG  ( talk) 00:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that even the new softened bit is unnecessary instruction creep. What problem is it trying to solve?  Dicklyon (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess adding that sentence was a mistake. An exceptional claim requires exceptional sources, but it doesn't require an exceptional editing policy. As a user of this policy, I'd like to provide a little feedback for the folks who maintain it. The exceptional claims policy seems to have developed around combating fringe theories — whole articles or sections about voodoo science, conspiracy theories, etc. I sought out this policy section because I came across a single sentence about a historical event within an otherwise legitimate article. I was somewhat confused as to whether the policy applied only to fringe theories or to any exceptional claim. Perhaps this policy section could be adjusted to better reflect its more general application. And maybe include a link back to the editing policy so editors know best practice on how to fix those types of issues. Thank you for your assistance.  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  16:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Summery
I would expect someone to revert this, as this is WP:V. So, please say why (: I think it's important to give an overview of how V relates to other policy, and why it's so important. Maybe if you don't like it, it could be improved instead of entirely rejected.  Also, I think it explains the core of VnT.  Perhaps VnT should be a summary of text per WP:LEAD, rather than something entirely in the lead.  And the phrasing of VnT might be easier to decide on if it were supposed to be summarizing text.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Because the conclusion of the section (Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information in Wikipedia, not the beliefs of editors) was not accurate. The beliefs of editors are of course relevant to the exclusion and inclusion of material in the encyclopaedia. That's the whole crux of the thing. If editors believe something to be outright false, for example, they should not include it, regardless of whether it is WP-verifiable. Where something is both verifiable and true the deciding factor as to whether it gets included or not is whether editors believe it should be. --FormerIP (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is nonsense. Most people don't think that evolution is true.  By your standards, information about it should not be included.  Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information in Wikipedia, and any other criterion is forbidden. Editing based on your own beliefs is against Wikipedia policy.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there's "people" on the one hand and then there's "Americans". Two entirely different things...
 * More to the point, there's beliefs and then there's beliefs. Wikipedia content should not be written so as to convey the beliefs of its editors, but the composition of Wikipedia is informed by what its editors believe it should include. Or: editors make judgement calls all the time. --FormerIP (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All those judgment calls should be based on an evaluation of what the sources say, a judgment of WEIGHT for example, not on what editors believe. I brought it up here.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  23:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but a judgement about WEIGHT = a belief about WEIGHT. --FormerIP (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Only in a sense: it's a belief about what the sources objectively say. It is, in other words, an attempt to have the sources, not your own beliefs, be the only relevant thing.  No one said we could do that perfectly, but a judgment about WEIGHT is an attempt to have your own beliefs not count.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Only in a sense is the wrong way of looking at it. In a sense, we are obliged to refer to our beliefs in order to edit Wikipedia. So it is wrong for a policy page to tell us we can't, even if the policy page means it in a different sense. It's a question of using precise, unambiguous language. --FormerIP (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But we aren't obliged to refer to our beliefs, but to our knowledge of RS. That's a big difference.  In determining WEIGHT, we refer to our knowledge, not our beliefs.  So, are there other examples of where our beliefs might legitimately come into play?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there's only a difference because you're making an unnatural distinction. Just as I can have a belief about evolution, I can have a belief about what the correct application of WP policy is. Similarly, my knowledge that Nature is a reliable source on this topic is also a belief. I think the wording you are proposing would produce the opposite of what you intend, because it encourages the idea that all sources and all interpretations of policy are equal. If there's a source that says evolution is comprehensively disproven, my "belief" about the quality of the source is no better or worse than the creationist's. --FormerIP (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I grant that it's an unnatural distinction that people wouldn't necessarily understand. So, what do you think of rephrasing to something closer to VnT, "Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information in Wikipedia, not the beliefs of editors about whether the sources are correct."?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because my beliefs about Creationism Weekly may quite properly influence my stance on discussions about its use as a source, per multiple policies. I think a correct thing to say would be something like: "Editorial judgement is always necessary in deciding what content from what sources to make use of in Wikipedia. However, these judgements should always be in keeping with established Wikipedia policy and editors should strive not to exclude material purely because they personally disagree with it, nor to include material simply because they personally agree with it".
 * On the other hand, I think a big problem with Wikipedia policy overall is that it is verbose and repetitive. What would be lost in this case by not saying anything? --FormerIP (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't want this to be about VnT... I want to include the section which related V to other policies, and said how if you follow V properly and keep your own ideas about truth or falsehood or whatever else out of it, then you will automatically meet the requirements of the other policies. So correct me if I'm wrong... but people have basically agreed here that it is just about the sources, not about what we as editors believe.  Maybe our beliefs tell us where to look harder for other sources, but basically if it's got sufficient reliable sourcing it gets in, and if it doesn't it's excluded, regardless of what editors believe.  If I'm right about the consensus on this, may we include the paragraph, or are there other objections?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No. You haven't addressed the objection. It doesn't read the way you are supposing it does. What the actual text you added suggests, taken without the additional explanation (which is how users will take it), is that we are somehow supposed to behave as automatons and the sources will somehow tell us what to include and what not to include. That seems to me very obviously not the way WP works, and editors will give themselves hernias if they try to live up to it. --FormerIP (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with FormerIP. So Becritical was half right (sources as a requirement for inclusion) and half wrong (essentially sourcing mandating inclusion) North8000 (talk) 01:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what North is saying, but FormerIP, if you can suggest some other way WP works, that's fine. But that is the way I see it as working, we are not exactly automatons, but we do simply rewrite and integrate sources.  We do not use our own judgment.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, how do we, without making a judgement, decide which out of Ian Kershaw and David Irving are better sources for our article on World War II? --FormerIP (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This was well stated. "Editorial judgement is always necessary in deciding what content from what sources to make use of in Wikipedia. However, these judgements should always be in keeping with established Wikipedia policy and editors should strive not to exclude material purely because they personally disagree with it, nor to include material simply because they personally agree with it". Is it from another policy page? Would it be possible, or useful, to use it in WP:V? NewbyG  ( talk) 02:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "So, how do we, without making a judgement, decide which out of Ian Kershaw and David Irving are better sources for our article on World War II?"  - By assessing the relative Reliability of the two sources and giving each source its Due Weight.  However... those assessments involve other policies.  Not WP:V.
 * There is an unfortunate tendency for people want WP:V to be the be-all-and-end-all decision maker when it comes to content... all too often people coat rack onto WP:V issues that are not within the scope of WP:V. Judging which of two published sources is better for an article one of them.  It simply isn't a WP:V determination. Blueboar (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for stripping down the text of WP:V. Which would probably not be a bad thing. But the question here is narrower. Do Wikipedian's make judgements about content or do they rely on the notion that sources will tell them exactly what to do by some sort of magic? --FormerIP (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, by magic, all Wikipedia content should be decided by looking in the mirror with a candle and chanting Bloody Mary three times and if you survive then your content goes in. Like a vampire because you invited it across the threshold of your home.  WP:V actually stands for WP:VAMPIRE, comments on it suck the life out of you by constantly misrepresenting what is being said.  Dreadstar  ☥   03:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So, how, without making a judgement, do you look at a source and decide whether it contains information that could be included in WP? Magic is the only way I can think of. --FormerIP (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, and this is just a rumor, there are three core content policies that can provide that magic. WP:V is the threshold to meet, not cross - you wouldn't want to make it mad, but just meet.  Then you ask the other two inhabitants if it's ok for the content to be a roommate.  If they all agree, then voila!  Magic!  Your content has been granted!  Easy peasey.  See?  Dreadstar  ☥   03:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Essentially, the sources, by no magic at all, tell us how to evaluate their reliability. We do so not based on our thoughts about the text, but on things like the reputation of publishing houses or journals or authors, which in turn are based on citations and standing in various communities.  It's circular, but refers to no ghost in the machine such as FormerIP would allow, that is some nebulous, non-material "editorial judgment."  In reality, such editorial judgment should have nothing to do with anything other than our knowledge and analysis of facts.  (I grant certainly the system is not overly "tight," that is we are not required to state where our judgments come from most of the time.  However, it's like verifiability itself, if we are asked to fully defend our decision about WEIGHT or other editorial judgments we've made, we should be able to do it by facts).  So I still haven't seen any case where anything more than pure analysis is required of editors.  "Editorial judgement" above is not defined, nor are the other policies.  But when you drill down to any proper meaning of "editorial judgment," you have no case where the subjective beliefs of editors are relevant.  Give one case where they are.  No one has above. And if there are no cases where subjective judgments are allowed, then we should state as much.  Maybe not in the words "beliefs of editors," but in some way.
 * So to rewrite the above, "Editors should not make judgments to exclude material because they personally disagree with it, nor to include material because they personally agree with it. All editorial judgments should be made based upon objective analysis in keeping with Wikipedia policy."
 * And Blueboar, don't you think that each main policy should include a section stating how it relates to the others, not merely a sentence or two in the lead? Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  03:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Critical is basically right: Wikipedia has the task to report in a fair way on the POV's as expressed in the literature, and pertinently not the POV of a few editors who happen to be working on a topic. Regretfully, many editors find that difficult or even oppose that goal of Wikipedia. However, if one suspects that some information is wrong, editors will search if they also can provide information that looks right - and that should not be discouraged I think. Thus I would suggest:
 * "Editors should not make judgments to exclude material because they personally disagree with it, nor to include material only because they personally agree with it. All editorial judgments should be made based upon objective analysis in keeping with Wikipedia policy." Harald88 (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a reference to WP:Notability or WP:Undue (based on secondary and third-party sources) should also be used in such a summary, as necessary for the editors to evaluate the weight of different opinions. --D.H (talk) 11:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the discussion here essentially about having criteria that guarantees inclusion of material? If so, that would be very difficult and nearly impossible because some material that conforms to all Wikipedia policies and is even true may simply not improve an article and shouldn't be included. --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

BCritical & all I would like to pose a whimsical question to you to make a sincere structural point. On any given article, editors have left out about 99.99999999999% of sourced material on the planet earth (trillions of pages). This is by consensus, starting with the smallest scale consensus that there is which is actions by one editor with no objections. The material is left out for a multitude of reasons...relevance, clearly in-error, length, unreliability of the wp:rs on this topic, usefulness-to-the-article, never-evaluated it for inclusion, etc.. By your statement, they are overstepping their bounds by deciding to leave that material out? North8000 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Folks... you are neglecting to address a key question... WHY do we need to have a statement about judging between two sources in the WP:Verifiability policy? How does it relate to the concept of verifiablitily?  Unless someone can come up with an explanation of how this directly relates to the need for information to be verifiable, I see it as being nothing more than instruction creep... yet another example of coatracking issues that are better dealt with in other policies.  This page needs to stay focused on one concept... the need/requirement for verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Autumn, in February

 * Agree 100%. My point is that that shouldn't be anywhere, but that is doubly true for wp:ver where it would also be off-topic. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here is the original proposed text

Modify partly per Harald88:

As you see WP:Notability or WP:Undue were already in there. The paragraph shows how V relates to other policies. North: yes, leaving the material out is already against Wikipedia policy, per WEIGHT. No one pretends we actually live up to our policies. If some editor comes and says "hey, you forgot something," then he has WEIGHT to turn to if anyone objects. Re the other reasons it might get left out, those are also based on various sources: "clearly in error" just means that other RS say it's in error, and you evaluate that per WEIGHT. Bob K31416, we have IAR: if no one wants the material even though it meets all policy standards, that is that. Blueboar and North are talking about instruction creep, but this is not what it's about. Rather, it's just telling people what V means to Wikipedia. It is also just noting that V must be applied in accordance with NPOV. That's really all that's there. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 19:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IMHO there are many problems with that. IMHO the "inclusion" part is a very bad idea, contrary to how Wikipedia was and is built, and a major new addition to wp:ver that is off-topic for wp:ver, and absolutely unworkable. It basically says that all sourced material goes into every article, that editors can not make selections (e.g. based on relevance, etc.)  (each article would be billions of pages).    As a sidebar, the notability related material is really scrambled.  WP: notability is a criteria for the existence of articles, it is not an attribute of text.  Text does not have wp:notability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * North, that's simply not what it says, and I don't know where you're getting that. It says that personal agreement or disagreement is not relevant.  It does not say that WEIGHT is irrelevant, and it does not say editors may not summarize so that only the most important points of the sources are included. Re your other point about notability, I now see you're right and it should be taken out.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It may not be what you intend to say... but I can understand how combatants in content disputes could easily misinterpret it that way (and one thing we always need to ask, when ever we write policy statements, is: could others misinterpret what we are saying?) From my experience, the statement "verifiability is the ultimate criterion for inclusion or exclusion of material" will be interpreted by editors involved in content disputes to mean that "verifiability trumps all other policies" and, thus, if something is verifiable it must be included.  I would also avoid discussing Notability in this policy.  Notability is our criteron for inclusion of topics (ie entire stand-alone articles)... notability has nothing to do with whether information should be included. Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I took out the notability part. See what you think of the change above "If the policy on verifiability is properly applied, articles will automatically meet the requirements of Wikipedia's other content policies."  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  21:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How does applying V properly automatically satisfy NPOV? It looks like you're trying to do that by adding a summary of the NPOV policy to V. So V itself isn't really satisfying NPOV. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, think about it: what does NPOV say except "say only what the reliable sources say?" If a fact is fully verifiable per reliable sources, it is ipso facto NPOV.  NPOV only says "do not violate V by letting your personal biases get in the way."  It says absolutely nothing more. Therefore, applying V properly automatically satisfies NPOV. The paragraph relates V to other policy, including NPOV.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Well, think about it: what does NPOV say except "say only what the reliable sources say?" — You can say only what reliable sources say and violate NPOV by choosing only to use reliable sources that present one point of view. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, here's where it says what it is to properly apply V: "If all available reliable sources are considered together and their content balanced within Wikipedia text, then they will meet the requirement of our NPOV policy on due and undue weight. If the reliable sources are summarized well, without any bias or additions, our text will automatically meet the requirements of No original research and the neutral point of view."  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I answered that in my first message. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just explained to you how all fully verifiable text will be NPOV.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Becritical, respectfully, I disagree with a while bunch of the things that you have said above. Both technically (getting some things scrambled up) and also I think that a blanket "forced inclusion" policy (which is what you are unintentionally proposing) is bad and unworkable anywhere, and doubly out of place in wp:ver. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so. I wonder though if I'm wrong, and we need to generally keep the policy the way it is.  If it's just not going to be understood no matter what, best not to change it. I can see from this conversation and others that there really is no deeper understanding of the energy/information flow of WP, and trying to write policy without such an understanding may be a bad idea.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  00:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's say you're right and leave it at that. --FormerIP (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason why we can't agree what WP:V should say is because we can't agree what it should mean. Something that to me or Jayen466 or  Jimbo is a simple and uncontroversial reading of V would be a horrible misunderstanding from SlimVirgin or Dreadstar or Doc9871's point of view, and vice versa.  If we all agreed on what WP:V should mean then it would be easy to produce a short, clear policy.  But the curse of Wikipedia's policies is that they're designed by committee.— S Marshall  T/C 00:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're right about that actually... Which is why I didn't post with North's initiative, I thought what we really need is to understand what we believe about policy. To get the policy itself nailed down and then decide how to word it.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  01:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that we have a pretty good answer right in front of us.  Which is, after setting those three ambiguous words ("not truth" and "threshold") aside, the wp:verifiability policy as written.  Basically the 99.9% of the policy that does not involve those three words.  And then tweak or clarify those three words to follow what is in the policy.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * True. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  02:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's take this somewhere
This is has certainly gotten confused / surreal. In the poll and idea under "OK, let's take this somewhere" above I ended up proposing a route to resolve this which it appears that 75%+ can live with. It involved keeping "not truth" and of of the half dozen folks active here at the moment, I think that the only direct conflict is that it directly conflicts with S Marshall. In the surreal situation here, only one person commented on it, and a couple of other people's main activity has been to try to remove the "under discussion" tag and accuse people of a bunch of nasty things plus accuse me of being a dynamic-duo with the person that my proposal directly conflicts with. !

Can we get back to business here? Specifically with identifying and working out something on the main contentious items? Doesn't need to be my idea, just anything that tries to identify and resolve the main topic/issue. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think for one second that either you or S Marshall are "bad" editors. I've dealt with my share of them, and neither of you are in that league. My concern is seeing this handled in a way that is consistent with the way other major policy issues like this are handled. A new RfC is certainly to be encouraged, and I doubt that anyone is saying that this discussion and others like it should cease in any way. The removal of the tag in no way stifles these discussions. You, North8000, want to include an additional sentence, after the VNT one, to further explain what the phrase means by "truth". I personally have no objection to that at all, but I can't speak for anyone else. Doc   talk  13:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I've proposed that several times and there were few comments and no objections and (I think) now a sort of supportive comment from you.   I might try just putting it in and see what happens.  I would be happy with it in a more obscure place (later in the lead, or even in the body of the policy) but somewhere close to the (only) actual use of the phrase in the policy seems less awkward.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The most productive thing we can do here is work towards agreeing the wording of the RFC.— S Marshall T/C 18:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on that, and happy to help, but it sounds like a daunting task.   I'm always looking for shortcuts.  :-)   North8000 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a shortcut! : The proof of a conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the validity of the argument.  NewbyG  ( talk) 12:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean or are implying, but what I'm talking about is to resolve the contentious part of the situation as quickly as is possible. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that what I did here was back track us to, again, discussing VnT. Umm, isn't that what we are supposed to be doing? NewbyG  ( talk) 13:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

edit request

 * 1)  userbyguesses talk (contribs) requests of the protecting sysop that

The following BOILER plate be inserted at Verifiability,  ‘’’replacing the entirety of the current lede section’’’.

Boiler plate language
All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable that is, we must be able to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. Readers and editors are easily able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, thus readers can gain sufficient confidence that every effort is being made to ensure that material contained in this encyclopedia is true.

It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question.  In practice it is only necessary to provide  inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged.[1]

suggests / ions
user:newbyguesses ‘’suggests’’ to the protecting sysop that due time and consideration to be given to this edit request.

Might user:Newbyguesses further request that then consideration be given to lifting of the page protection, subject to <staying cool when the editing gets hot> and a likely coalescing consensus.

User:Newbyguesses invites scrutiny or copy-editing of the above Boiler plate ‘’which would replace teh entirety of teh current lede section’’’. In teh event of consensus clearly not coalescing in confirmation of any resulting draft/boilerplate or the page protection of wp:v expire in the meantime etc. Quo vid. Pro tem. Arrivederci, then user:Newbyguesses vacates and withdraws this request for an edit through protection. There is no particular urgency. NewbyG ( talk) 16:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Boiler plate language for replacing the current (protected) lede section at Wikipedia:verifiability
‘’Discussion of Boiler plate language for replacing the current (protected) lede section at Wikipedia:verifiability’’
 * Unqualified support exactly as proposed.— S Marshall T/C 17:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some good stuff in there, some "baby with the bathwater" issues, but I think that we need something that can reasonably fly as a compromise. But it does contain something new and important that maybe most can agree on which is giving "Challenged or likely to be challenged" greater prominence.  Right now the criteria which is the spirit of this is very ignorable and routinely ignorable. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

*Not* boiled
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth— readers and editors must, always and for ever more check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed. Unsourced contentious material about living people must be remov-ed immediately. For help on adding citations, you simply must see Citing sources.

Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view must be Wikipedia's core content policies which must work together to determine content. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy not must of the time, all of the time.

Goings on

 * Perhaps this above goers next? NewbyG  ( talk) 21:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Bold edit reverted
In an attempt to better explain VNT, I added the following to the end of the first paragraph:

This was reverted with the edit summary: "WP:V is why we have WP:NOR, not the other way around"... actually it is the other way around. WP:NOR is why we have WP:V. WP:V grew out of WP:NOR (which itself grew out of WP:NPOV). Verifiability is how we determine that something is not OR. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought it was hard to read and "undue" is just one reason for excluding verifiable material. You might consider whether there should be a section about when it is permissible to exclude verifiable material, if that was your point. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here’s the, err, diff?? A matter of 180 bytes, it would seem. A good add, I am thinking. NewbyG  ( talk) 15:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Bob, my point was not to explain when it is permissible to exclude verifiable material (that was just a parenthetical aside, and can be omitted or moved to a new section if it confuses the issue), the point of the addition was to explain why unverifiable truth is excluded (because it constitutes OR). Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a new editor would find it confusing to introduce the WikiPhrase "original research" at that point. A new editor might think "Sure, it's unverifiable, but it isn't my discovery." It might not occur to the new editor that we don't care if the editor made the discovery, or is relaying an unpublished discovery by someone else; it's all the same to Wikipedia.

Alternatively, the editor might know the material does not qualify as original research in the normal sense of the term, but nonetheless is unpublished. For example, the formula for Coca-Cola would not qualify for a patent because it has been offered for sale to the public for more than one year, but it is unpublished.

(WikiPhrase is a newly coined phrase; it's a phrase with a different meaning in Wikipedia than the rest of the world.) Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough... but my contention is that we need to introduce the WikiPhrase: 'original research' in order to explain the WikiPhrase: 'Verfiability, not Truth' The two are directly and intimately connected. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this complicates things. I fear this idea is based on too long thinking about things in "wiki" ways that are not necessarily comprehensible to the outside world. Original research may well overlap with something not being verifiable, but it is quite a distinct concept. Pretending otherwise would be for the sake of making the rules look more logically simple, but it would not be correct anymore.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Truth be told, wp:nor and wp:ver are 90% duplicates of each other and should probably be merged. And "OR" boils down to being simply a synonym for non-wp-verifiable material. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem with that remark. The two policies aim at very similar results, but remain logically different. You could perhaps say that they come from different directions? So combining discussion of them in one article might be possible, but trying to combine them into one sentence which is written as if they were identical concepts is like trying to redefine reality, and will create confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Relevant definitions from dictionaries
dictionary.com


 * 1) any place or point of entering or beginning: the threshold of a new career.
 * 2) the point at which a stimulus is of sufficient intensity to begin to produce an effect: the threshold of consciousness; a low threshold of pain.

Websters


 * 1) the place or point of entering or beginning : outset <on the threshold of a new age>
 * 2) the point at which a physiological or psychological effect begins to be produced
 * 3) a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not

And, as a sidebar, I deal in technical fields where the term is used extensively, and in those definition #3 applies.

Presumed widely-accepted intent of "threshold"

 * 1) Obviously, to state that meeting wp:verifiability is a requirement for inclusion
 * 2) To put forth the idea that step #1 when putting in material is meeting the verifiability requirement
 * 3) Since all situations have only one threshold, using the term gives extra emphasis /importance/prominence to that particular requirement.  The thought is that it needs extra emphasis because of its importance and that people often try to not follow it.

Comments / analysis
First, I like the sound of "threshold" in the policy. I'm used to it, and none of the other ideas that I've heard sounds as good to me. But under the common meanings of the term, I think that it is ambiguous at best, and incorrect at worst, and that these issues have impacts.

Using the two "#1" definitions are where it is "ambiguous at best". The doorway metaphor would sort of mean an "initial entry point" leaving open the possibility that there may still be other requirements/tests, but it certainly doesn't say or mean the latter.

Using #3 under Websters, (which can be really applied, no metaphor needed) and the two #2's as metaphors, the use of "threshold" is flat out in error. They all mean that the result is controlled by one factor, with the factor being analog or continuously variable (e.g. having a magnitude rather than just two states). With the former, this is an outright incorrect statement that verifiability is the ONLY requirement for inclusion. And in the case of the latter, it is not analogous; meeting verifiabiliity is treated as a question with a "YES/NO" answer, not a matter of degree.

Conclusion: Even though it sounds good, we should change it to something that solves the ambiguity problem and other problems while still fulfilling the described intentions.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Re: "Since all situations have only one threshold..." - who says situations must have only one threshold? I think it is accurate to say that the threshold called "Verifiability" is the most important threshold (as the others depend on it), but there are other thresholds.
 * I don't know if you have ever seen the opening credit sequence to the TV show "Get Smart"... but it is a good analogy. In the sequence, we see Maxwell Smart enter a building and walk down a long corridor.  He comes to a large door, which slides open and allows him to continue down the corridor... where there is another large door which also slides open, allowing him to continue.  He comes to a third door, and a fourth, etc. until he finally arrives at an elevator (disguised as a phone booth) that will take him into the secret headquarters of CONTROL.  Each of these doors (and the phone booth) acts as a threshold, leading (eventually) into the secret headquarters.
 * Now, imagine that these doors are marked "Verifiability", "No original research", "Neutral point of view", etc. and you can see the analogy. The first door an editor comes to is the one marked "Verifiability".  That door must slide open before he can continue down the corridor that leads to the secret headquarters of INCLUSION.  It is the threshold.  However, he is still in the corridor and not yet in the secret headquarters.  He must continue to walk down the corridor and have the doors marked "No original research", "Neutral point of view", "Relevance" etc. etc. slide open.  These too are thresholds... but he doesn't come to them until after he has passed through the door marked "Verifiability".  Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are several thresholds, then verifiability is not the threshold. Verifiability is a threshold.— S Marshall  T/C 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To Blueboar Yes, I remember it well. And I understand what you are saying.   But wouldn't you say that an metaphor/analogy that relies on an unusual "Get Smart" series of doors scenario to make it work is not a good analogy?  And then there are still common meanings which indicate something that is in error. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It isn't a case of "error"... We can discuss whether the analogy is the clearest way to express what we mean, and suggest ways to express what we mean that we think might be better ... but the analogy isn't "wrong". Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry that I failed to fully explain. I meant that if one uses the two #2 definitions and the #3 definition of threshold, then what the "threshold" sentence says in is error. For example, per "a level, point, or value above which something......will take place and below which it is not or will not."  Basically saying that meeting wp:ver is the sole determining factor for both exclusion and inclusion, which is incorrect. Sincerely,      North8000 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Threshold" means that verifiability is the minimum requirement for inclusion of material.
 * 2) 'The threshold for 'inclusion' in Wikipedia' is...
 * 3) 'The threshold for insertion in Wikipedia' is...
 * 4) The core statement is "verifiability is a requirement for inclusion" and incision and insertion and several prescriptive statements implicitly.
 * 5) All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, because other policies and guidelines don't works wp:TPG  NewbyG  ( talk) 20:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding Shortcut
WP:PROVEIT should be included as a shortcut to this page's section ==Burden of evidence==Curb Chain (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Err, it's already there.LeadSongDog come howl!  21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the shortcut already points to the section... but I think Curb is requesting that it actually be added to the little list of shortcuts that in the little box that accompanies the section. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those shortcut boxes shouldn't have a comprehensive list of shortcuts. I suggest replacing WP:UNSOURCED with WP:PROVEIT as the latter has many more uses. — Bility (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just did a quick check on the usage for all three:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Shortcut !! Links (approximate) !! Views (last 30 days)
 * WP:BURDEN || 4000 || 1526
 * WP:UNSOURCED || 200 || 1000
 * WP:PROVEIT || 2000 || 208
 * }
 * I can't see a clear case for switching the links so I'll remove editprotected for now. If you come to an agreement about this then by all means add it back. Tra (Talk) 06:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:PROVEIT || 2000 || 208
 * }
 * I can't see a clear case for switching the links so I'll remove editprotected for now. If you come to an agreement about this then by all means add it back. Tra (Talk) 06:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

How 'bout this
Resolving both of the above by clarifying rather than eliminating: Add the following to the first paragraph:


 * "Not truth" in this policy means that nothing, (such as truth of the material) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement; "threshold" means that verifiability is an important requirement but not the only requirement for inclusion of material.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

North could you add your text to the opening paragraph I've copied below so we can see it in context:(olive (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC))


 * "Threshold" means that verifiability is the minimum requirement, but not the only requirement for inclusion of material. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  05:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, requirement for material. *Not* (not) tth requirement for inclusion. Nor for requirement for inclusion of material. At that point, it is the ability of editors to discern whether potential material is going to be verifiable material. It is not about  includability or  inclusingness or includitionally or  incluedingly. It is, fore better or worse, Verifiability. Inclusion is wiki-jargon for *I want to edit this page* and *Deletion* the same is wiki-jargon for *you messed up my page* NewbyG  ( talk) 05:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I was thinking. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, I just noticed that you actually meant to put it in there. Here goes. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I like North's suggestion very well. I strongly support it. I've noticed something weird about the first sentence of the lead's current opening, though. I promise I'm not meaning to sound nitpicky, but... with the present wording, the sentence describes verifiability as the ability to cite reliable sources. Should we be more assertive here? The second sentence asserts that verifiability is essentially a requirement. The first sentence kind of makes it sound like an option or an editor's prerogative. My thinking is that verifiability is really the ability of readers to verify that WP material cites reliable sources, and a requirement that editors cite such sources accordingly. Perhaps instead of the ability to cite, maybe the practice of citing, the requirement to cite or something? If nobody else sees the first sentence in this light, then that's fine, I can ignore it. I'm not arbitrarily opposed to it, but I figured it was worth mentioning as food for thought.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 20:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By "ability" I'm certain it means that it is an attribute of the material, specifically that it is sourcABLE. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Anything that starts out "Verifiability on Wikipedia is the ..." still comes off as a wierd WP-space dictionary definition rather than policy or even guidance. Who cares what it is defined as? We care that editors do something (i.e. that they cite reliable sources). We can couch this either in the prescriptive: "Cite reliable sources so that statements are verifiable", or in the descriptive: "There is no substitute for the citation of reliable sources in making statements verifiable", but getting wrapped up in definition of terms right off the top is a dead loss. It trashes any hope for retaining a reader's attention. Make the main point first before worrying them with details like VNT.LeadSongDog come howl!  20:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My focus is just on dealing with the contentious areas. I was figuring that non-heated general improvement topics could be handled after that. But, commenting on your thoughts, the core statement is "verifiability is a requirement for inclusion" and several prescriptive statements implicitly but obviously follow from that such as "don't put in unverifiable material" and "unverifiable material may be removed".  Also that there is no prohibition from putting in uncited verifiable material.     My personal opinion is that that is a good approach for the beginning rather than to try to say some or all of the prescriptive things that flow from it.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that people look at "Verifiability, not truth" and decide that it means that information from a source that is verfiable should be included even if we know it's false.

The only way to solve this problem is to phrase the rule in a way which clearly says not to do that.

There have been tons of proposals that try to avoid conflict by watering down the "this is wrong, don't do it" part. But watering it down in this way is watering down the very reason that we need the change in the first place. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Briefly, here are the three points in the spectrum.
 * Wp:ver being interpretable to say "the truth never matters, and may not enter into discussions"
 * WP:ver remain silent on the "truth" issue. except to say that nothing overrides meeting the verifiability requirement
 * An objective of wikipedia is accuracy (or the straw-man word for accuracy which is "truth")
 * You are #3, in spirit I am #3, but I think that the policy should be #2, and that is what my proposal does. Further. it is a compromise which explains rather than removes the contested wording. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)