Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 57

Howzat? fore grammar
Compare this for grammar "Verifiability on Wikipedia means that the information in an article must be supported by reliable sources."
 * Do we really wish to say that it is the editors who are verifiable or that the material is verifiable? NewbyG  ( talk) 05:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What's really lame is that you aren't going to get rid of the strength of "not truth," that is that truth does not matter, only verifiability matters, without comparable wording which does not lessen the strength of the current wording. However, you will never come up with acceptably strong wording unless you fully explain VnT.  For my part, I think North's statement above is a good reason to keep VnT: "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."  That means we agree on the interpretation of VnT, and he thinks it shouldn't be there.  But it should.  If VnT is the best wording we can actually have with the meaning that truth or falsity should not be factors in editorial decision making, then that's the wording we have to have. BTW, VnT in terms of "truth" is just a restatement of OR: deciding what goes into Wikipedia on the basis of "truth" is original research.  Be— —Critical  09:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Updates on progress at the associated project page
Progress at Wikipedia:Verifiability is slow. Since June 2011, the lede has occupied most energies, the wording is stagnated, the project page is bloated, discusss. 07:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC) NewbyG  ( talk)


 * Since November 2010, actually. Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 44 is where the ball starts rolling.  I recommend reading the history.— S Marshall  T/C 09:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Eh, the events in November 2010 took a backseat: North8000 and a few others decided they had consensus to change the lead, and the "status quo" was rightfully restored. Many, many threads followed that one. If we are going to dig through the archives, I find this poll from April 2011 interesting. Even when it was relisted and commented on further, there was no consensus whatsoever for the change suggested by this most simply worded and straightforward of polls. Then the ball starts really rolling. And here we are again. Doc   talk  11:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, although I was active on WT:V in November 2010, I was focused on the copyright issue at the time. As I recall, once it was established that there was no consensus either way, editors divided into two camps: (1) Those who felt that discussion should continue until consensus was reached, and (2) Those who felt that since there was no consensus, editors in group (1) should shut up and go away.  There was a near 1:1 correspondence between those who felt VNT should be amended and group 1, and a near 1:1 correspondence between those who felt the lede should be left alone and group 2. (It was at that point that an editor in group 2, Cerejota, decided to shut group 1 down by force.  He made various controversial edits that led me to voice mild criticism of him on my talk page, which ultimately led to this WQA thread.  I mention this WQA, and also this RFC on tendentious editing on WT:V, because both are relevant to ongoing conduct on this talk page: without making any allegations, I want to suggest to involved editors that it might be unwise to take on the role of self-appointed talk page manager.) As you can see, this dichotomy remains very much a live issue.  Where there's no consensus, should those who urge change (a) persist until consensus is reached or (b) shut up and go away?  I'm not aware of any guidance from neutral parties on that question at all, but if anyone does have any, they'd be very welcome to post it.— S Marshall  T/C 12:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Consensus to change or add something is one thing. This concept of consensus to keep something that is already here I find... more elusive. You've stated before that VNT is a "fossil": how does something stick around long enough to become a relic if there was no consensus to keep it in the first place? VNT does "enjoy consensus", since there's no consensus to remove it. You're looking for consensus to remove VNT, and there is no consensus to do that. No one has to come up with proof of why it should remain - you must change consensus to see it gone. You've even made an alternate suggestion to do essentially what North8000 wants that would retain VNT, I believe. This was right after Blueboar reminded you yet again that "...we have long since established that there is no consensus to change the first sentence". You didn't seem to argue that this consensus really wasn't long established then judging from your immediate reply to his point. So why do you keep saying it now? Because of the last RfC? Judging from this statement, I think it's important for you to know that you do not have to be convinced of consensus existing for it to actually exist. Achieving your goal is not what WP is about. Doc   talk  12:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No available replacement text for VNT
Doc, it's easy to make a mess of what I'm saying by quoting me out of context, because what you'll find if you go back over the last year and a half is that my views have evolved considerably. In most cases they've hardened. It's true that my willingness to compromise has been severely eroded. I've come to realise that it is extremely rare for an editor to change his or her mind about this issue, and I've come think that, as any logician or mathematician will tell you any compromise between the right answer and the wrong answer is a different kind of wrong answer. As far as I'm concerned, it's uncontroversial that while there's no actual consensus, at the second-largest RFC Wikipedia's ever had (after the SOPA one), the clear majority of editors wanted VNT amended. It follows that the consensus-seeking approach is to find a mutually acceptable way to amend it. I find that editors who're seeking a mutually acceptable way to preserve it in the lede are being obstructive and difficult and I strongly wish that editors would be prepared to use the majority view as their starting point. I'm basically waiting until enough time has elapsed since the last RFC to begin a new, large-scale one in which we ask editors what they want. I would like the next RFC to be the last one, which can be achieved by agreeing that the majority view should be binding.— S Marshall T/C 13:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Check out the flow chart. VNT has to start somewhere, so we'll put it in the top step. An edit is made to policy to remove VNT - that's step 2. At step 3, we find that someone has reverted the VNT removal, so we go to "Do you agree with the change?" You do not: you want the edit that was reverted to stand, which removed VNT. So you go up to seeking a compromise. Retaining VNT is logically in Step 1, the "previous consensus". Where else would it be? You're trying to get down to the bottom of the flowchart - the "new consensus". So, once again, VNT does currently enjoy consensus, and you are trying to achieve a new consensus. And we're back at the "seek a compromise" part until the next edit is made.  Doc   talk  13:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a few simple questions for S Marshall that I hope he will address.
 * - Given the flowchart, do you now understand that what you are trying to achieve is a "new" consensus rather than simply "consensus"? And that it is the "previous" consensus that you are trying to change with the edits?
 * - Was the suggestion you made of adding the explanation after VNT (which North8000 agreed with) a serious offer at compromise that is now off the table for good? If so, why have you changed your position so fundamentally that VNT must go, and that no compromise will be allowed where it remains?
 * - Back to question 1: if, indeed, you were to admit that VNT is the previous consensus and that edits made to the policy must achieve a new consensus, then would that not mean that point b) of "...I see evidence of a genuine consensus that Wikipedians want to retain that phrase" has been met? Evidence of a "genuine" consensus might be that it is the previous consensus, correct? Doc   talk  14:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Question 1. As I've said before, I don't believe that VNT has ever really enjoyed consensus support at any of the major RFCs we've had. I do accept that in the Byzantine world of Wikipedian process guidelines, the current version is the stable version and should remain until consensus is achieved. But my position is that VNT is in place, and remains in place, because of the first-mover advantage rather than because editors want it. Question 2. My offer was a serious offer at compromise because I was engaging, at that time, with editors who seemed genuinely prepared to seek a compromise that works for all sides. My support for Blueboar's compromise, which retained VNT but not in the lede, was on exactly the same basis. I've hardened since then. Conduct during the RFC by the anti-compromise faction proved that extreme intransigence and unwillingness to compromise is what works on WT:V. The many allegations and accusations I've faced here haven't exactly softened my attitude either, and neither has the evidence of editors getting together off-page to whine about me. I wish you lot would start this RFC/U on me if you seriously think I'm such a disruptive influence. Question 3. If VNT did enjoy a genuine consensus supporting it, then that would have come out in the RFCs. That has not happened, so VNT does not enjoy consensus support. QED. And it doesn't deserve to enjoy consensus support either, because it's a bad and misleading formulation. I've always agreed with what Jimbo Wales said in this diff: "In all situations, the phase 'verifiability, not truth' is not as good as proposed alternatives."— S Marshall T/C 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I will try this again. The version with VNT, as it is now, is the current consensus. Whether you like it or not, whether 2/3rds of the population likes it or not. Now, I am not saying that this consensus is necessarily "correct" simply because it is the current consensus, and I'm not saying people don't want badly to change that consensus: I'm saying that it is the current consensus. You are looking to gain a "new" consensus, not "consensus". Nothing wrong with that at all. In order to get a "new consensus", to change the current version/result of the consensus in place now, compromise has to happen. Look at the flowchart again, which is prominently displayed on WP:CON. It's not my flowchart. This "first mover advantage" stuff to explain why VNT has been here for so long - I find it to be absolute garbage. No offense. Doc   talk  22:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already accepted that the current version is the version which should remain until consensus is achieved, and I'm not sure what else you want me to agree to under this subheading. It can't possibly be right to describe having VNT as "the current consensus" when nobody seems to deny that 276 editors, being a two thirds of those who responded, want to amend it; "consensus" does have a meaning, and it certainly doesn't mean "that which less than a third of people support". However, it does not seems productive to engage in further argument about that point now. I do think there is such a thing as a first-mover advantage and I do think it's a problem with our processes. I don't think it's garbage. But again, it does not seem productive to argue about it.— S Marshall  T/C 23:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Look at it this way: whenever you want to say "until consensus is achieved", simply add "new" before "consensus". If you cannot see the difference between "previous consensus" (right or wrong) and "new consensus", and at least differentiate between "until consensus is achieved" and "until a new consensus is achieved", then that is not something I can help out with. Cheers... Doc   talk  23:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Reboot, 16 February 2012
LeadSongDog come howl!  22:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Rebooting 16+ February 2012
NewbyG ( talk) 23:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I like LeadSongDog's version but I'm less enthusiastic about Newbyguesses' revision. Policy shouldn't contain self-contradictions or koans like "nothing and everything in it can be trusted" (or indeed "verifiability not truth").  Short positive clear declarative sentences, not inscrutable zen, please.— S Marshall  T/C 12:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A simple 'The first version is better here, the second one looks like a joke' would have done here. Comment on the edit, not on the contributor, at all times observe the talk page guidelines, please. NewbyG  ( talk) 14:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with both suggestions is that they leave out half of the equation ... yes, we leave it to the reader to verify doubtful assertions ... but it is the responsibility of the editors who wish to add or keep assertions which may be doubtful to actually provide verification.... so that the reader is able to verify it. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In other words... verifiability is a concept that involves both editor and reader. Information is considered verifiable if an editor can provide verification - verification which allows the reader to verify the information. Blueboar (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I'm missing something. How can an editor "provide verification" other than to cite sources? LeadSongDog come howl!  18:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, editors do not "provide verification", unless they do it by cting reliable, accurate sources. But when adding something unsourced. and which is perfectly reasonable, good sources will be available,;: At that point, an editor is *NOT* providing verification, the editor is  assessing whether material, for whatever reasons, is worth including 'inserting' at this point in time. A mental process is involved, followed by the physical activity of editing, or leaving the page alone. NewbyG  ( talk) 05:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Too busy?
I'm puzzled why this talkpage is drawing more than fifty edits in one day. Perhaps editors could voluntarily restrain themselves to three or four times a day? We'd do better with a few well-considered entries than lengthy discussions that promptly disappear into archives, never to be seen by occasional visitors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)‎

Big problem here
See. Something needs to change here if we're to get back to sensible editing. This page has become impossible to follow due to the super high edit rate, representing most noise it seems. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ya learn something new every day. NewbyG  ( talk) 23:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved. 24-hour block with warning, followed by cleanup of this talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
I have complained at ANI that NewbyG is being disruptive here and needs to be blocked. Feel free to briefly support or oppose there. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That incident is finalized. The complaining user was told to go away, and will not be posting to ANI again, nor will *I*. NewbyG  ( talk) 23:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, resolved. NewbyG has committed to stay off this talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, if false information is going to be posted, and posts deleted inappropriately, I may make an edit occasionally here, since my behaviour has been questioned here, and is no worse than some, some who cannot take a beam from their eye concerning their own long-term inappropriate behavior, which apparently will be on-going.  NewbyG  ( talk) 02:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I was wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, wrong. No big deal, I said I intended not to post here, not "stay off" that is a bit too crude. Also, you deleted a post for no reason. Also, I repeat, I intend not to post here, as soon as &you& stop attacking &me&. That's what I said, in English. But "stay off my land, pardner"? What is this cowboy-ville? NewbyG  ( talk) 02:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, NBG, stay off the talk page until we can repair the damage you've done. I think it would take about 18 hours of lockdown to handle your bizarre subheadings and non-Wiki hidden text.  It might be cleaner just to remove (or archive) everything that NBG has written and replies, and start over without the subcomments and hidden text.  That might be a violation of WP:TPG, but something needs to be done so that discussion of the issue can occur.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NewbyG has been blocked... so there is no point in continuing this thread. Suggest we just draw a big line across the page and start over. Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, Arthur, you are correct: that's taking ineptness to a whole nother level. I propose that you block immediately next time you see that happening again, and I'll do the same--esp. those subheadings, that's incredibly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up the mess. I may be getting some good comments along with the disruption -- if so, my apologies. I am intentionally deleting some comments that make no sense without the surrounding disruption -- if that's a problem, let me know.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Much better now.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please summarize the last few days
I have been away for a few days... and I am finding the recent threads hard to follow. It would be helpful if someone could summarize the key points. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Discussions went on.
 * 2) Nobody agreed on anything.
 * 3) The page got blocked.
 * 4) NewbyG managed a self-block without being an admin.
 * 5) The page got unblocked.
 * 6) Nobody's agreed on anything.
 * 7) Discussions going on.
 *  Wifione  Message 03:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very astute of you. Discussions will go on. The policy will be completely rewritten. Stay tuned... Doc   talk  03:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lulz. Be— —Critical  04:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is pretty totally trashed. I recommend that anyone with a topic open start over at the bottom, copying what's started if it's not too corrupted by NewbyG to make sense of. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, please don't end a sentence with a preposition, or I might have to relegate your comments, uninformed as some are regarding the well-nigh infinite dispersal of means and the unequal distribution of what passes as intelligence in even lesser-known quarters than the current (rather chatty) community, to a different section where, environmental factors notwithstanding, they may better grow into the negative fruition they so richly deserve--if articles were nitrates, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, of course. Peace. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Drmies, please don't write a one-sentence paragraph of preppysition. (:   Be— —Critical  04:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ending sentences with prepositions is something up with which we will not put.— S Marshall T/C 13:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As someone who only occasionally looks in here I've tried to understand what has been going on and couldn't make any sort of sense of it. I agree that the whole lot should be archived and discussion restarted. Polequant (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After you posted, SarekOfVulcan went through and pretty effective removed the uninterpretable mess an repaired the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Efforts to remove the "under discussion" tag

 * Convenience link to section wikipedia talk:verifiability

Without repeating everything, there are strong reasons for this tag. If you want to remove it despite those, and prior to a resolution, please approach that by trying to get a consensus, not by edit warring. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You alone have reinstated it at least six times since its humble beginnings way back in August, and you've stated you will keep it there until you get your way. That's not how WP works, and it's not the purpose of tags like this. Doc   talk  12:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a mis-characterization. But, either way, if you want to remove it, please get a consensus rather than trying to remove it by edit warring. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand what edit-warring really is. It's not just about 3RR. It's also about taking an article hostage until you get what you want. A "slow" edit war. Now, you may not like to provide diffs, but I certainly do. The sixth different editor who's just attempted to break this policy free of this pointy tag that's been there for over half a year - you can revert them, too if you want. Just another diff. Doc   talk  13:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The sentence is highly controversial, a vast majority in a huge RFC wanted it changed. And a resolution has not yet been reached. If you do not agree with the tag please obtain a consensus for removal. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No - if you don't like the sentence, file a new RfC to remove it. It's amusing to me that you have no problem when someone removes VNT against the result of the community-wide RfC when it said there was no consensus to implement that change, and the page has to be locked down for edit-warring; and yet you claim this tag needs your "consensus" for removal?! Really? Wow. Doc   talk  13:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Its been removed section header
Yes, it would need a consensus for removal. Such has been the basis all along. It is what has been "keeping the peace" while we discuss and try to resolve this. And it is a big open issue. North8000 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) It's been removed. You cannot pick and choose when consensus applies. North8000, I want to point something out to you. You've had over 1600 contributions to this talk page, and a whopping 17 edits to the page itself. That's a really, really, really low ratio of edits to dialogue expended. Maybe you would be more productive focusing your energies on other areas of the project besides the removal of three words from an article. Doc   talk  15:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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. Just sayin... NewbyG ( talk) 15:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would prefer to keep the tag. It is accurate... We are still discussing the paragraph.  Remember, the tag says "under discussion"... it does  not say "disputed" or "Don't pay attention to this".
 * That said... I don't think it is worth edit warring to keep the tag in place. Removing the tag does not end the discussion.  The discussion will continue whether the tag is there or not.  The tag is simply a notation to let editors know that a discussion is taking place.  No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course the discussion will continue. Preach on! There is no longer any section to link that ridiculous discussion tag to anyway: it was originated after the RfC didn't go a certain way, and it originally linked to something tangible rather than the entire talk page as it is trying to be kept (shameful, really). "The premise of the policy's under discussion: see the whole talk page, and try to sort out why for yourself." Doc   talk  16:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * .*not*...worth edit warring to keep the tag in place. Removing the tag does not end the discussion. !Revelations:Chapter 1 verse 1  NewbyG  ( talk) 17:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It would need a consensus to be removed. Please stop trying to do it via edit warring. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note well: (do not edit war) NewbyG  ( talk) 18:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How it's sitting at this hour is due to edit warring of folks trying to remove it. Taking it here for the moment is to try to handle it in a civilized fashion,not a reward for warring. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a mis-characterization. How it's sitting is due to edit warring in trying to *retain* it. Try to handle it in a civilized fashion. NewbyG  ( talk) 20:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop removing the tag. The stable position at the moment is that VNT remains in the policy provided the tag remains, so that editors are not fooled into mistakenly believing that VNT enjoys consensus support.  If editors insist on repeatedly and disruptively removing the tag because they don't like it, or because they wish to pretend that VNT is a mainstream view, then my response will be to repeatedly remove VNT from the policy and encourage others to do so as well.— S Marshall  T/C 21:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now we get a *cute* tag on this page, and another statement of battle-field intentions. Either surreal or poisonous, shall it take till next Saturday to decide? NewbyG  ( talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder to the editing policy and talk page guidelines

 * 11:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC) We are reminded, belatedly, of the editing policy,  editing talk pages and  being civil. As  we were in the beginning wiki.


 * NewbyG ( talk) 11:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't get to apply homemade tags to Wikipedia Policy. Dreadstar  ☥   22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And you don't get to edit war to take tags off, sunshine. Your influence on this page is becoming increasingly disruptive as you try to get your way through sheer brute force.— S Marshall  T/C 00:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! Thanks for the laugh, that's truly hilarious!  I know you'll probably ingore my suggestion, but I recommend you look to your own tendentious and disruptive editing here before you start pointing fingers at others.  :)  Dreadstar  ☥   16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ. "Tendentious", a word never used in the real world: only ever by Wikipedians who're trying to get others blocked.  The trouble is that you genuinely think you're in the right, Dreadstar, and that your contempt for my view is fully justified, and that your strongarm tactics and your sneering are acceptable.  You genuinely don't see a problem with your own conduct on this page, and you genuinely do see a major problem with mine.  Frankly, I despair.— S Marshall  T/C 20:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen some pretty serious AGF and civility violations here. People that saying that someone favoring keeping the very appropriate tag is due to nasty, arrogant or self-serving motives. Then someone said that since I contribute a lot in discussion here but make few edits to the policy (a proportion and carefulness which I think would be the norm for a major policy) that I am doing something worthless or wrong and should leave. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A thank you to Dreadstar for the comment revision regarding this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah pot, going back to your own recent bad faith attacks and much earlier ones on others. Dreadstar  ☥   22:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

On another note, the tag has kept the peace, where, after a huge and contentious RFC, the version preferred by the much smaller minority is sitting in the policy while the discussions are going on. North8000 (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you've held this Policy hostage with that tag for a long time, that time should end. Find consensus for your proposed changes or leave it be.  Dreadstar  ☥   22:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just one of many folks (actually the majority of folks as indicated the the RFC) who want some change. My own proposed (compromise) change is a mild one.....a sentence somewhere else in the policy which clarifies the meaning / intent of "not truth".  But that's just me.  Please don't mistake or paint my willingness to endure a little heat to try to help move on  a balanced process to bring this to a conclusion with all of the other nasty motives and stuff like "held hostage" etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the tag is being edit warred in by only two (or three? Doc has the stats) of you, and each instance makes that more obvious; so yeah, you are indeed holding this process and the policy itself hostage. Nice.  Dreadstar  ☥   00:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Aside from Kotniski once reintroducing SMarshall's creative way of tagging with a proper tag back in August (that actually led to a discussion at the time), yes, it has been only two editors who continually reinsert the tag. SlimVirgin, Tryptofish, A Quest For Knowledge, Dreadstar, Doc9871, Newbyguesses and Littleolive oil have all tried unsuccessfully to demonstrate that consensus for removing this tag is greater that the only two who really insist on it being there until their goal is achieved. Doc   talk  03:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy should/shouldnot be tagged

 * I'm of the opinion that policy should never be tagged, it's either policy or it is not - anything other than that is confusing and vague, and makes policy nothing but dross.  We have a small minority of editors that want to tag it so doubt is cast, but the last RfC on this portion of policy did not find consensus to remove or modify that part of polcy.  All attempts to dissect that RfC to try and prove some 'madate' are ridiculous.  Either put up an RfC to remove it and succeed or shut the hell up. Dreadstar  ☥   22:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is getting out of hand. This is the stable version of the policy. It should not be tagged. As suggested above, open an RfC to deal with the issue and bring in the community, but tagging like this is neither a solution to the concerns raised nor to making the talk page a place editors want to work.(olive (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC))


 * I've restored the last stable version, which DOES include the tag, and will now request page protection since editors are edit-warring over it.— S Marshall T/C 00:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You've got to be kidding, a dispute tag is in no way indicative of a 'stable' version. You're just attempting to edit war and protect your own preferred "this isn't policy" version.  You think this will look good on you?  Keep it up.  Dreadstar  ☥   00:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm 100% serious and my intention was to end the edit war over this tag, which you started. No matter how much you try to look like the bad guy, I will not permit you to remove this tag until you get a proper consensus to do it.— S Marshall  T/C 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't start it, I just particpated in it. And you "will not permit"?  Glad to know you WP:OWN this policy, another strike,  Keep going, eh?  If you understood how consensus actually works, you wouldn't be attempting to edit war your tag in - much less making homemade tags.  And yeah, I gave you the benefit of the doubt by saying you were 'kidding' that a dispute tag is indicative of any kind of stability, dispute makes it inherently unstable.  Fracking jebus, the distortions going on here....'stable' my ass.  Dreadstar  ☥   00:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You boldly edited, I reverted. This is the moment when you reverted my revert, thereby starting an edit war. Wikipedia rules have a first-mover advantage: the version of the policy that was there first is, in the absence of consensus, the version that remains. You've used this to your advantage in keeping VNT in place despite the fact that the RFC plainly shows editors don't want it in the lede; I've accepted this because those are the rules. But the rules are also that you don't get to remove the tag against consensus if anyone's prepared to revert you. I'm prepared to revert you, which means that I can stop you removing the tag. And I will, which is what I said. That's no greater degree of WP:OWN than you've demonstrated. I know you don't like the tag, Dreadstar, but I'm afraid you'll have to live with it. And yes, please, I'd be grateful if you would stop distorting things.— S Marshall  T/C 01:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your tag was first reverted long before that edit Marshall, and there are only two of you that keep posting it. The tag has not had any consensus since the end of the last major RFC, which went against your removal or changes of VnT.  Don't try to spin this back on me, the tag has no consensus. And indeed, I don't think Policy should be tagged at all, it's either policy or it isn't.  I've neither distorted things nor do I have to 'live' with your singular POV.  Dreadstar  ☥   01:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Marshall, tags indicate instability. Your reading of the RfC is your reading. Had there been a declared consensus, the policy would have been changed, it wasn't. Your playing games with this policy. I don't like that, and its not appropriate. I know nothing I say will have any impact on this page, but that's my position.(olive (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC))


 * Why don't we put this energy into resolving it instead?  And then legitimately remove the tag. Looking at who is saying what, I think that a solution that 90% can live with is in reach.  North8000 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the section clearly is under discussion, and particularly urgent discussion, as close to two-thirds of about 400 editors editors in the recent RfC professed themselves unhappy with it. -- J N  466  03:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, there was no consensus, which is what Wikipedia runs on, not a "majority rules" democracy. Show me the consensus for that tag.  Or would you rather just attack me again?  Dreadstar  ☥   03:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic has veered off the original discussion of tagging POL pages

 * What's interesting about that is that none of them have been restoring the tag (or making "homemade tags", as if that were appropriate for a policy page). It's been two editors restoring it when seven different editors have tried to remove it over seven months. It just redirects to the talk page: there is no meaningful discussion to point anyone to. Doc   talk  03:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So, there never has been consensus for the presence of that tag and it needs to be removed immediately after protection has expired, unless consensus can be shown that the tag needs to stay. Beyond that, I would like to see if the community believes whether or not Policy should be tagged at all, is it Policy or is it not? And how many editors does it take to hold a policy or guideline hostage with a depreciating tag until they get their way? Actually there appears to be a historical consensus to remove it, with 7 removing and 2 continually editing warring to replace it.  Dreadstar  ☥   04:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And back to the original topic

 * As far as tagging policy, a quick scan of NPOV, NOR, BLP, CIV, COPY, CON, VAND, NOT... not a single "under discussion" tag on any of them for anything. Guess this is a "special case". Doc   talk  04:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And with SMarshall at 6 taggings (including the two of his own creation), and North8000 at 7 taggings, these two have got a basic average of one tagging apiece for each independent editor who removed it. That's not indicative of an understanding of consensus on this issue. Doc   talk  05:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well really this has always been about North8000 and S Marshall getting their way. They will continue to lay siege to the talk page and the policy page until they get what they want. Quale (talk) 06:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This from above really says it all - not at all what consensus-building is about. It's basically outright saying, "If I don't get my way, I will disrupt this page." Read it carefully. Is that how we should operate? Frightening. Doc   talk  06:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Section sub header TPG

 * VnT is longstanding consensus text. There is no consensus text with which to replace it, because there is no common understanding of what it means.  Therefore, there is no compromise or consensus in sight on VnT.  In light of that fact, the tag should be taken out of the article till there is sufficient consensus to start an RfC on alternate text.  Keeping it there for an undetermined period which might be months or years only confuses readers.  Be— —Critical  07:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

After that quick "priorities" poll, I'm optimistic that there is a solution that 90% can live with at which point the tag could be legitimately be removed. And it just involves clarifying or tweaking three words to clarify that they follow the rest of the policy. I roughed out a roadmap there. Why not redirect these energies into resolving this instead? North8000 (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop these attacks. As Jayen466 correctly points out above, this is not about a minority of two editors edit-warring to have their way.  The number of editors we know to be opposed to having VNT in the lede is 277 (counting the 276 who took part in the RFC, plus Jimbo Wales who's always been very clear about this issue but did not take part in the RFC itself.)  The number of editors we know to support having VNT in the lede is 149.  The RFC was closed on the basis that VNT should be removed from the lede.  This closure was then unilaterally reverted by an involved editor and the RFC re-advertised using non-neutral language, and it is only this shoddy and unacceptable conduct that has led to the present deeply unsatisfactory status quo. Please deal with the fact that editors do not want VNT to be in the lede of this policy.  The consensus-seeking option is to look for a way to remove that you're prepared to accept. Please stop pretending that having VNT in the lede is a stable long-term option.  That's not what editors want. Please stop pretending that a lack of consensus for Blueboar's compromise is the same thing as consensus supporting the status quo.  It's time to accept that with only 31% of editors opposing Blueboar's compromise, even if all of those supported the status quo—which clearly not all do—the status quo isn't remotely acceptable to the community. Thank you in advance for ceasing to attack North8000 and myself for our attempts to bring about what is, after all, quite demonstrably what the majority of editors want, and also thank you in advance for re-engaging in good faith attempts to find a way to make this policy say what editors want it to say. Alternatively, if you wish to continue your programme of attacks against North8000 and me, I suggest that you begin with me.  Requests for comment/S Marshall is where you should bring your lynch mob, so that this page can return to its proper function.— S Marshall  T/C 12:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Re the recent poll / Rfc

 * "The number of editors we know to be opposed to having VNT in the lede is 277"... not quite. You are making a flawed assumption that the number of editors who expressed support for my proposal at the RFC = number of editors who are opposed to having VNT in the lede.  But that is not accurate.  A lot of those who supported my proposal (including me - it's author) were never "opposed" retaining VNT in the lede ... we merely thought that moving it out of the lede was the better of two perfectly acceptable choices ... only about a third of the support votes actually opposed retaining it in the lede.  Support for something does not necessarily mean opposition to something else. Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As you already know, I think we should ask editors what they want, rather than asking them to select options from a menu we've prepared for them. But the fact that a user supported your proposal does indicate that of two mutually exclusive options, that user prefers the one that doesn't keep VNT in the lede.  To the extent we can tell from the evidence we have, the majority would prefer VNT removed from the lede.— S Marshall  T/C 16:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah... if you talk about preference for moving it, and not about opposition to keeping as is, I can agree with you. My quibble was with using the word "opposed".  It is quite possible for someone to prefer one suggested wording without opposing another.  Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no "programme of attacks". It's the preliminary presentation of very serious and solid evidence for a topic ban, due to persistent disruption and continual attempted subversion of community consensus, in a very clearly declared battlefield manner. It's reality. Diffs will be forthcoming... Doc   talk  12:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a common reaction to a content dispute: turn it into a conduct dispute and try to ban the other side so you can get your way. I await your RFC/U, but stop the accusations here.— S Marshall  T/C 12:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * BeCritical and Blueboar have both stated that the tag can/should go. These are two editors who would happily see VNT go "bye-bye" just as easily as you. And yet you still can't see the consensus to remove this tag? As if the discussion would just end without it being there? Is a 10:1 "consensus" enough for you? How about... 100:1? Would it matter? Nah. You, SMarshall, not anyone who thinks VNT should go, should be topic-banned. That is my firm opinion, and it is because you will not stop disrupting this page until you get what you want. Doc   talk  12:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure about BeCritical, but I think you have it backwards on Blueboar. Above they said that they prefer to keep the tag and that it is accurate. North8000 (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Doc, you didn't address any of the points that S Marshall just made, you just hurled topic ban threats. I'm quite tired of the ad hominen arguments / attacks, severe AGF (to the point of BIBF - Baselessly Inventing Bad Faith)  and wp:civil violations and insults from a few folks. People investing their time to try to improve Wikipedia do not deserve such treatment, even if you disagree with their viewpoint.  And I'm talking about a few people, not just Doc.  Let's just try to move forward.  North8000 (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Show me one sentence, in any one section, on any other policy that has an "under discussion" tag that merely redirects to the talk page. Just one. Lots of policies, lots of sentences, lots of sections. Have you found it? Has it been there for seven months? Because of two editors edit-warring to reinsert it? No?! Well, why is that? Oh! Because there is not one other example of that to be found. Gotcha. Doc   talk  12:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please stop the nastiness. Regarding the target, there IS extensive discussion (please see several hundred lines above, nearly the entire talk page) and so the talk page is the proper destination for the link. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Nastiness? There is not one single tag on any other policy of the English WP. Literally not even one other tag, anywhere. This is the only one; and two editors out of the teeming thousands have decided that it will remain, indefinitely, on their terms. Do you think this is... consensus? Doc   talk  13:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well following your logic, (that consensus is needed to KEEP the status quo) we could delete VNT today. :-) North8000 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny actually, nice one :) To touch on the tagging again, it's been used as a tactic since... well, anybody ever tagged anything. On this page, here we have an interesting example of an editor removing a tag from a prior dispute. That tag didn't stick around terribly long. I guess it was more easily resolved than some other issues needing perpetual tagging. Here, we have an editor applying a tag on a different dispute because, and I quote, "...this paragraph has been disputed for about six months." I guess that dispute ended with no need to retain the tag to this day. Why is this tag so special that it cannot be removed like the others? Doc   talk  12:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Doc... The appropriateness of a tag (and the appropriateness of removing a tag) depends on which tag is being used... in your first example, the tag stated that the text was "under discussion" ... it was appropriate to add because the text was under discussion. It was removed because the discussion had ended - since there was no longer a discussion, the tag was inappropriate.  Your second example is different...the "tag" that was added stated that the text in question was "disputed", not that it was "under discussion".  It was removed because "disputed" tags are not considered appropriate for policy pages.  We can take it for granted that there is going to be someone out there who disagrees with any given polices statement.  We don't really need a tag to tell editors arriving at the page that this is the case.
 * What I am getting at is this: A "disputed" tag not helpful in the context of a policy page... it is simply WP:POINTy. An "under discussion" tag on the other hand, is informative and helpful in the context of a policy page... as long as the discussion is ongoing.  Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what's inappropriate or pointy about a "disputed" tag? They're used on articles all the time.  What makes policies a special case?— S Marshall  T/C 18:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My contention is that Policy is either policy or it isn't, tags are unnecessary and confusing - they do nothing but help falsely invalidate the policy they're tagging. Policy has had consensus, and it needs consensus for changes.  So if someone disagrees with Policy, there's no reason to tag, just find consensus to change it. Once there is consensus, it can be changed. But until then, tagging -- especially long-term tagging -- is just a way to introduce uncertainty without gaining consensus for change. It is one person saying his view matters more than anyone else's, as is long-term tagging of an article.  Dreadstar  ☥   18:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My position is that VNT has never enjoyed consensus support. It was moved from NOR to V by UncleG in 2005, and then moved up into the lede by, I wonder who it was, let's see, a certain person, promoted higher up into the policy by someone, removed and then restored by someone, and again, expanded by someone, restored by someone, then the first "disputed" tag was removed by someone, and... well, that's enough to illustrate the point, I think.  VNT is the result of a one-woman crusade to add it, promote it, expand it, and defend it from all comers.  When it was seriously challenged and brought before the whole community, it was found not to enjoy consensus.  It's there because of the first-mover advantage and subsequent obstructiveness.  And that's it.  The purpose of the tag is to alert editors to the fact that it does not enjoy consensus and never has. Further, you've shown no intelligible reason why a policy shouldn't be tagged in circumstances where wording is genuinely disputed.  Your insistence on removing the tag seems illogical to me.  There is no policy, guideline or RFC indicating that policies may not be tagged and every reason to warn editors that this wording is disputed.— S Marshall  T/C 19:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My response wasn't really to you, I have no illusions that I will ever be convincing you of this, it's merely to get it on the record. Aside from that, I can't help it if you refuse to admit or understand what WP:CON means or how it works, there's no 'one-woman crusade,' and Policy tagging was disputed and cast aside many years before your recent attempts to jam it into this policy.  And your last sentence is exactly the problem with a tag; "every reason to warn editors that this wording is disputed", find consensus for changes to the content you dispute - in the meantime, it's still policy.  Your apparent inability to find my reasoning 'intelligible' is your problem, not mine.  Dreadstar  ☥   20:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I gave some good reasons that the policy shouldn't be tagged. "VnT is longstanding consensus text. There is no consensus text with which to replace it, because there is no common understanding of what it means. Therefore, there is no compromise or consensus in sight on VnT. In light of that fact, the tag should be taken out of the article till there is sufficient consensus to start an RfC on alternate text. Keeping it there for an undetermined period which might be months or years only confuses readers."  I think if you want to get it back to the status where a tag would be appropriate, then come to a consensus on what VnT does/should mean, and then do a rephrase, and then when an RfC is ready to start, the tag would be appropriate.  But a discussion over a phrase whose meaning no one knows is not something we need to advertise.   Be— —Critical  20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Becritical, that makes no more sense than Dreadstar does. Surely if as you say we don't know what the phrase even means, then a tag is exactly what's needed, so as to attract editors' attention to the fact that there's a problem and hopefully introduce fresh participants into the debate.— S Marshall  T/C 20:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's just resolve the "spirited debate" topics in a way that 75% can live with, and then legitimately take the tag off. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * While we, in discussion, may not feel the policy is as clearly articulated as policy as we'd like, the policy has been in place and used for a long time. Policy pages are not article pages which by their nature in a collaborative, article-writing situation will be undergoing constant change. Policy is the stable factor in a dispute. Editors in DR situations referring to policy need to refer to the most recent stable version of policy and don't need top know that a group is disputing the fine and sometimes picky details of wording. So no a policy page is  not like an article page. And by the way your[Marshall] attacks on an editor who isn't even here are becoming pretty tedious. Could you can those attacks, please. (olive (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I could do a lengthy weigh-in on those topics, but instead, say, lets put those energies into resolving the key issues so that we can legitimately take it off. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've discussed different approaches to dealing with text and have commented on variations of the text, I'm not sure where to go next. Thinking about it.(olive (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC))
 * That's backwards. The policy was tagged and shouldn't have been according to several editors, so there can't be a legitimate removal if the tag was illegitimate to begin with. However, I agree that many of these discussions would become moot if we could reach agreement on the text itself.(olive (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC))
 * By all means then, User:Littleolive oil we could reach agreement on the text itself, in discussion here, or by editing to the  ===ongoings draft section===  below  NewbyG  ( talk) 22:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC) adds or leave thethingy as is


 * If policy was the stable factor in a dispute then all policies would be permanently protected. VNT has admittedly been blown far out of proportion to its unimportance but while it remains in the lede it's not a fine or picky detail.  I'm also, admittedly, still absolutely fuming about Slimvirgin's conduct.  But the fact that I'm angry with her doesn't make me wrong—and when VNT is being erroneously described as enjoying consensus support, it's not an "attack" to show, with diffs, how a "consensus" of one editor was responsible for bringing it to its present state of prominence.— S Marshall  T/C 21:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * There isn't any actual problem with the policy, as Wikipedia has grown up with that phrase in there. If there is a legitimate rephrase based on common understanding, that's when a tag should be present.  It was legit to have it there during the RfC, but not now.  Be— —Critical  21:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember the rfc

 * Responding on previous post, I think that what happened to that RFC is important to remember now for several reasons. A few are:.
 * Rightfully deflate the high status that some people are trying to assign to the current text.
 * We must recognize that, compounded with the things that can be done to / added to / it, a large scale RFC has been made an absolute roadblock to any change and is not a viable method. We need another way. Like find something that 75% here can live with and just put it in.
 * Keep it from happening again. "Whatever we forget we are doomed to repeat" or however that saying goes.
 * Develop an intolerance to that type of behavior by calling it what it was.
 * BTW, I completely separate the behavior from the individual. A good person can do something horrendously bad and still be a good person, and I consider them to be good person.  North8000 (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Policy is the most stable factor we have. We need to maintain that stability while this hashing out is going on in the background. And I agree with Becrit above Wikipedia has grown up with the policy.


 * One editor doesn't make consensus, what does is that the policy, whoever wrote it, was not overturned by the community. Slim Virgin has a long history of writing policy on Wikipedia so we can expect she had input, but had the community wanted to change the policy they could have outvoted one editor. It didn't. And how many times are you going to lay the blame at SV's door. If that's how you feel fine, but we don't need to know that. Lets move on.(olive (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC))


 * Well, if we don't abide by Marshall's demands, then we face threats like this, it's appalling. The continued focus on SlimVirgin is also concerning. Dreadstar  ☥   21:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the focus on SlimVirgin is not appropriate. She helped write and influence a ton of it, but she has not edited this policy or talk page since November of last year, and has stepped aside from this for others to discuss and implement, obviously. Consensus beyond SlimVirgin has been established (partially affirmed by the decision of three neutral admins after much "a'fussin'"), and that consensus cannot be ignored. If VNT must go because it is inherently disruptive, please draft a RfC (on another page) based on its continual damage to the project, and then file it. Why does this not happen? It's ruining this policy, correct? Doc   talk  07:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The only consensus from the RFC was the first close which was to make the proposed changes.  The second close didn't even claim a consensus of any type, it said that there was no consensus. North8000 (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe three times is a charm. No consensus for the change by three neutral admins is what happened. That does not mean that VNT does not "enjoy consensus" here (to quote another editor). New RfC! No VNT! NO VNT! This new RfC will determine consensus, unlike the other one. Where is it? Doc   talk  10:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually there was a subsequent belated RFC for the changes years before that led to the current wording. I think that like only 1/7th supported it, and then someone prematurely terminated it. North8000 (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Four times - less of a charm. Doc   talk  11:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

VNT is dynamite

 * So if I understand correctly, the argument is that VNT got added and then not removed (or at least, actually, it was removed several times but the removals were reverted). Since VNT has been in the policy for a long time, it's assumed to enjoy consensus due to WP:SILENCE, amirite? This surely parallels the way that Kotniski's underdiscussion tag was added a long time ago and not removed (or actually, removed several times but the removals were reverted).  Thus the underdiscussion tag enjoys consensus due to WP:SILENCE and should not be removed without a consensus to get rid of it, which you do not have (note Blueboar's view carefully). It's true that Kotniski's no longer active on this page, having probably been driven off (like Hans Adler, Jayen466, Jimbo and many others who wanted VNT rewritten or removed) by the way the page has degenerated into entrenched one-true-wayism and naked, blatant hostility towards those who want to Defile the Holy Sentence.  To be honest, I'd very much welcome you lot starting a RFC or RFC/U on content or conduct on this page, because I think you need input from other editors to convince you that VNT is genuinely controversial and I'm genuinely a respected editor with a mainstream view and not some weird lunatic from the fringe.  I wish you'd get on with it.— S Marshall  T/C 12:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those editors you mentioned have not been driven off by anyone. At least they haven't mentioned specific names... They are more than free to comment and make any contribution to this page. If they choose not to, that is not any grounds for "silent approval" of VNT elimination. Notify them of this thread, please. The more opinions on this, the better. Doc   talk  12:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly anxious to be accused of canvassing. Nor do I wish to make editors feel obliged to rejoin a discussion they've abandoned for whatever reason.— S Marshall  T/C 13:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The goal is to protect the project from disruption. If VNT must go because it it is inherently disruptive, then it is your duty to convince the community why it must go. Consensus, despite what some may or may not believe, is that it is currently not disruptive enough to have been removed, after the RfC. New RfC time. VNT specific. Doc   talk  13:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. On Doc9871's quite specific insistence, I propose to canvass people I know to be hostile to VNT to attract them to this talk page.  If you object, say so: I'll leave it a little while to give people the chance to protest.— S Marshall  T/C 16:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I should record here that an editor protested. The protest was subsequently removed as disruptive, and there is some evidence that the protester may not have fully understood that Doc was asking me to invite these editors—in fact, my comment was described as a "threat"—but still, I feel obliged to take the protest seriously, which means I do not feel able to contact people to invite them here. — S Marshall  T/C 18:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Random section break

 * Well, under above, I gave the example of an anonymous "listed Scientologists" diversion in the Guardian's TV programme section. The BLPN discussion was at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive89. The upshot of that discussion was that a majority of editors, incl. Jimbo Wales, came to the conclusion that the information in the Guardian list was untrue. As a result, Gloria Gaynor was removed from List of Scientologists, along with other people whose inclusion was only supported by that anonymous Guardian piece (which seemed to some like it had been copied from Wikipedia). Now, according to the present policy wording, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true", the editors who insisted on WP:V in that discussion should have carried the day, the fact that Jimbo and other editors thought the information was untrue should not have carried any weight, and Gloria Gaynor should still be listed as a Scientologist in List of Scientologists. Is anyone actually suggesting that should have been the outcome of that discussion? And if not, how can we adjust the wording so that we can still get a sensible outcome in cases like that, without apparently breaking policy?


 * And how can we do it while not opening the floodgates to OR and deletions of well-sourced material? -- J N  466  16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the "let's leave it out" does not violate wp:ver, but does violate some of the mis-interpretations that wp:ver is prone to due to those three ambiguous words. One solution would be to remove/replace the three words, another compromise solution would be to explain/clarify them as I proposed above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is only the threshold for inclusion, it has been said before

 * Verifiability is only the threshold for inclusion. BLP content especially, should have more than one, highly questionable source for the allegation made. This is a highly critical point. Verifiability is the threshold. It opens the door but does not guarantee entry. The other core policies which then come into play decide whether content once it has passed the requirement of the threshold for inclusion, can be included. Verifiability does not mean inclusion. It means we can now look seriously at the verified source by applying the other applicable policies. I have seen the WP:V misused multiple times and mischaracterized to mean content can be included, while editors refuse to discuss or bring into play the other policies. The fault doesn't lie with WP:V. The fault lies with the editors and their refusal to use the supporting policies. I believe strongly that many editors in this discussion page are arguing for the same thing that is,  against this same kind of misuse of this policy. We just aren't agreeing on how to accomplish that.

To answer you question more explicitly. If the WP:V policy lead were worded in a logical way and order:


 * use the key phrase which defines this policy in a memorable way... V not T
 * define each part of that key phrase: what we mean by, and clearly and strongly explain threshold in context of this policy, define verified, define truth
 * define editor role, define reader expectation

I've said this before to ridicule. The defining issue in this policy is Threshold. And we must define beyond any doubt what we mean by threshold. In terms of our articles it means the editor has applied the preliminary action, verification, and can say the content is verifiable. Verifiable, though, is not synonymous with "will be included". Then we apply the other policies. Only with this two step procedure can we include content, that is, if it passes the tests set out by the threshold policy, and then, as well, faces all of the other applicable policies. Right now many are trying to" test for content" in one step using one policy. Its not a one step process. That's the problem here seems to me.(olive (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC))


 * The defining issue in this policy is Threshold of Inclusion, or inserting verifiable material. And we must define Vnt. Beyond that, the [[meaning of truth and nothingness NewbyG ( talk) 18:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, the thing is that the wording "not whether editors think it is true" is misused, has been misused, and will be misused in cases like the one described here. "It's verifiable, and we are not concerned with truth." From mid-January until recently, we had the wording "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true". It's a wording that clearly specifies the minimum requirement for inclusion, but cannot be misused in this way. This wording leaves the question what to do with sourced material that may be untrue to other policies and guidelines, as the lead of this policy should.
 * You are right that it is not a one-step process. But we must never write a sentence – let alone one as prominent as this one, in the lead of a core policy – that implies that it is. -- J N  466  21:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jayen I understand what you want to say, but that sentence doesn't really say it and is syntactically and grammatically incorrect, IMO. It doesn't make sense in terms of its grammar The problem is that tacking on "unsourced" to content doesn't make the case you are trying to make.  I don't see why we can't just write what you're trying to say. Something like the below?(olive (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC))


 * If the defining issue was really "Threshold of Inclusion" then we should rename this policy "Threshold of Inclusion". But actually the defining issue of this policy is the need to attribute quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged by means of an inline citation.— S Marshall [[User

talk:S Marshall|T]]/C 21:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. Your describing the sign posts that indicate both verification and the other policies have allowed for inclusion of content. They don't explain the policy.(olive (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC))


 * Actually, yes. I think that what this policy is about is verifiability, and I think that verifiability means attributing your sources wherever your material is challenged or likely to be challenged.  I think all this business about the threshold for inclusion is ancillary to that.  Honestly, I wonder if the answer isn't to split this policy into two: WP:V for attribution and sources, and WP:T for threshold for inclusion.— S Marshall  T/C 00:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * verifiability policy : to attribute quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged by means of an inline citation.— Quite agree.  NewbyG  ( talk) 22:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point, SMarshall. The general criteria for inclusion are verifiability and due weight (BLP is stricter). The criterion for exclusion of material meeting inclusion criteria is editorial consensus. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * On must be careful of the mechanics of the statements. What you are talking about is Wikipedia imposed requirements for inclusion. By consensus etc. editors implicitly use other criteria.  (relevancy etc. etc.) North8000 (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get drawn into a discussion here which would defocus from V, but I see relevance as a WP:DUE issue. Material with little relevance to an article topic has little significance and thus little weight. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That was just one example. Editors leave out 99.9999999999% of the material on the planet earth from any given article for a multitude of reasons, and in most cases, the exclusion is NOT because inclusion would go against a policy or guidline. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Threshold for inclusion is verifiability. They are different aspects of the same definition. Verifiability does not mean there will be refs... inline cites, it means that potentially there could be refs... inline cites if the content is verifiable and also complies with the other policies which govern inclusion of content. Both steps are necessary in understanding and wording or we end up with abuse of the policy.(olive (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC))

re vnt, see this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Olive, I am fine-ish with your version above, up until the point where you say, "At no time does what an editor think is true or accurate become a criteria for the inclusion of content into Wikipedia." Because looking at all the statements Gaynor had made, and so forth, the majority of editors in that BLPN discussion did come to the conclusion that what this anonymous collection of "Listed Scientologists" in the Guardian's TV programme – giving just names of purported Scientologists, with no background – said about Gloria Gaynor was untrue. And in that sense what we thought did become a criterion for deciding what was included in Wikipedia, and what was not.

Another example, off the top of my head, is that there a number of sources stating that Jimbo Wales is Jewish. A hardline VnTer would argue that we are not concerned with truth, and that it is verifiable that sources have stated Jimbo is Jewish. However, that view does not have broad community support. We know those sources are plain mistaken, and unless the mistaken attribution of Jewishness becomes an issue in its own right in reliable sources, this piece of mistaken information has no place being in Jimbo's biography, verifiable or not. And the fact that we think it is untrue undoubtedly has something to do with it. So, how can we word it? -- J N  466  02:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's rather a thin argument. The "hardline VNT" position would be more along the lines that conflicting statements of fact in published sources demonstrate that some of those sources must not be reliable even if the publication of the statements can be verified. The difficulty then focusses on how to establish which side is the unreliable source. When one side is clearly better regarded (The Times vs News of the World, e.g.) the answer is simple. If they appear equally credible and the positions are similar in current prevalence we either seek better quality evidence (in this case possibly by inviting Jimbo to furnish clarification in an RS publication) or we discuss the dispute itself. We simply do not override the published source with our own unpublished knowledge. This whole thing has echoes of the "birther" controversy in the US. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems we are in agreement, except where you say "We simply do not override the published source with our own unpublished knowledge." Editors may look at sources, and come to the conclusion that one side is simply mistaken, or unreliable for this particular statement. For example, if you ask Jimbo and he tells you he is not Jewish, and you find that other sources don't generally claim he is either, then you "think it is not true". And that is precisely what current policy says does not matter. Editors, every day at WP:RSN, decide, collectively, that a certain source may or may not be reliable for a particular statement. What editors think matters, and it determines – not in an abstract sense, but in a real, everyday practical sense – what enters this encyclopedia. -- J N  466  15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S.: And please remember: I am not advocating in the least that we say "Editors can delete material they consider untrue". Instead, I want us to stop saying that "whether editors think it is true" should have no bearing whatsoever on what may be added here, because as currently written it implies that editors must not question or assess the reliability of a source – which is patently false, because it's something editors in good standing do here every day, and other policies in fact tell them to do it. -- J N  466  15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@Jayen: That was a quick draft, maybe I can redo it. The key in that last sentence is "for the inclusion content". While editors can discuss accuracy, that discussion does not permit inclusion. My belief is that there is a point where editor consensus on such issues can trump clearly inaccurate content. I could show you a whole list of articles where content in the article adds up to inaccuracy and there is no way to argue that with editors who have in multiple ways declared their POVs. Verifiability is a threshold policy and deals with what is needed to underpin the other policies. From that view Verifiability should not deal with accuracy, but the other policies, and editor agreement and consensus should. There's a point where IAR comes strongly into play, where editor common sense has to trump policy, and Wikipedia makes allowances for that. Once verifiability is established, all the policies all of the discussion and IAR can be "invoked", but not before. The real problem is that editors use Verifiability to maintain strangleholds on POV edits and slanted articles. It takes a very Wikipedia-mature group of editors to reach consensus on issues which trump the letter of a policy. Verifiability is not the place to deal with that problem except possibly to point to the problem itself. I'll think about how to reword to include these ideas, then see what others think. My opinion of course.(olive (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Olive, that is very close to the argument I have been making all along. My argument has been this: "verifiability, not truth" makes sense when we are talking about unsourced content. If there is no source whatsoever to say that Stephen Hawking thinks physicist X is wrong, because he hasn't written about this yet and only told me his opinion when I met him in a pub, I cannot add this to the article. It is true, but not verifiable.
 * However, "verifiability, not truth" is often applied, incorrectly, to sourced material. Editors will say, "it's verifiable, and whether you think it's true or not does not matter, because the lead of WP:V states, '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.
 * So because this wording can be (properly) applied to unsourced material, as well as (improperly) to sourced material, WP:V in its present form does actually make a comment about accuracy – and the comment is, or can be interpreted as: "Accuracy does not matter. It is enough for something to be verifiable."
 * So I agree with you that other policies should be applied, and are available, to decide what to do with sources that may be in error, or may be unreliable for a particular statement – a matter that is particularly important when writing biographies of living persons, which have to be written conservatively. Are you with me up to this point? The problem I am concerned about is that "Verifiability, not truth" combined with "not whether editors think it is true" does not foster conservative writing. It fosters reckless writing, especially in those problem scenarios that you allude to. -- J N  466  01:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Olive meant "can be misinterpreted"? We don't really need to worry about this. If an editor "knows" the truth is at variance from what is presently verifiable, it simply provides motivation to dig harder. Only if he still can't turn up a source is it likely to cause him to question his "knowledge". In the worst case, he propagates erroneous information which is already published, but at least he isn't originating the error. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, that's what happens, and the worst thing that can happen is an untruth in the literature gets spread around, and if it's important then someone who's in a position to do so is more likely to correct it. Be— —Critical  05:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You say, "the worst thing that can happen is that we spread an untruth", as though this weren't a particularly bad thing for an encyclopedia rated no. 1 in Google to do. As far as I am concerned, mutliplying erroneous or malicious information is about the worst thing an encyclopedia can do. It doesn't reflect editorial practice either, especially in the context of BLPs. Jimbo's article does not say he's Jewish, because, well, he isn't, even though it could be sourced. It's not a minority opinion, it's just wrong. We do not claim that Gloria Gaynor is a Scientologist, sourced to an anonymous piece of filler in the Guardian, because we've looked at the source and don't believe it was the product of any reliable research. Our article on tinnitus does not tell sufferers that they can heal themselves by rubbing the sides of their spine around the kidney region for a minute in the late afternoon, using their thumbs, even though a column in The Observer once verifiably said so (see User:Tom_Morris/The_Reliability_Delusion). We do not add everything that is verifiable to this encyclopedia, independently of whether it is true or not, and there is no need for this policy to state or imply the opposite. -- J N  466  15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, of course we wouldn't say "Gloria Gaynor is a Scientologist". We might, if it was relevant to a further narrative (perhaps about a defamation suit), safely say that on (date) "The Guardian published an unsigned filler piece[ref] saying that Gaynor was a Scientologist, without citing their sources." Because we are cautious about treating primary sources as reliable, this is dealt with in wp:RS and wp:PSTS. Likewise tinitus should follow wp:MEDRS which would rapidly show that Observer clipping the way to the trashbasket. Why would V need to address it too? LeadSongDog come howl!  16:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary page break

 * I'm totally in agreement with you – WP:V shouldn't address this one way or another. WP:V is about preventing original research. It's about not having unsourced stuff in the article, based on an editor's assertion that it is true. WP:V shouldn't be commenting on a case like Gaynor's or Jimbo's at all, where we have a nominally reliable source making a mistake. But the present wording does comment, by saying "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." We can mitigate it by saying "not whether editors think unsourced material is true", to make clear what we are talking about. In fact, the policy did say that for three weeks. But then someone reverted that stupid old wording back in that literally says that once something is printed in a reliable source, whether you or any editor thinks it's true does not matter one jot. At the same time, editors are told (see WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:REDFLAG) to assess and scrutinise the "reliability of sources". We have an entire noticeboard devoted to that. If editors scrutinise the reliability of a source, a really major part of that is deciding whether or not they think what a source says is likely to be true. But then we also say what they think doesn't matter. So we are essentially saying, Editors have to assess the reliability of sources, but their assessment does not affect inclusion of the material in Wikipedia.
 * That's just nonsense. It's a double bind. And before you tell me that we are not saying that, please re-read the current wording: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. -- J N  466  16:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the present wording is simply bad grammar, so different readers will parse its structure differently. That fact obscures any meaning it might otherwise have. Worse, it uses the ambiguous terms "threshold" and "material" in ways that are certain to be misunderstood. What on earth is that emdash supposed to convey, anyhow? Is it discussing the verifiability of the material, the verifiability of its publication, or the verifiability of the source's reliability? Is the "verifiability" of an assertion a theoretical possibility, yet to be tested, or is it to be demonstrated by assessing the reliability of the cited sources prior to inclusion? As sentences (and I must use the term loosely) go, this one is a genuine stinker. Hence we are here on the talkpage trying to fix it.LeadSongDog come howl!  18:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to Jayen: I think my last sentence in the draft I laid out above is problematic. What it might say Is something like, "At no time does what an editor think is true or accurate establish the verifiability of the content"

I still think the V not T text should open this policy but I would agree that, the explanation we have in place now is awkward and doesn't explain. I have supported the reversion of the policy text to the early stable version as a stable jumping off place, because adding bits and pieces is a kind of very ineffective band aid. The whole lead needs to be rewritten all at once if we don't want to have an unintelligible muddled mess.

Suggestion. I'm in no way attached to this just brainstorming:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 17:28, 23 February 2012‎


 * The tone of Littleolive suggestions is that material that complies with all policies is entitled to be included. That's wrong. Inclusion is based on the discretion and consensus of the editors about what constitutes good writing, and what is interesting for our readership. Nothing is entitled to be included. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I don't think there is one single threshold for inclusion at all, which is why I believe it is inappropriate for the policy to say "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is".— S Marshall  T/C 17:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not what is being said, actually. This, and the word :"can" in "content can be considered for inclusion in Wikipedia"  means the possibility or potential exists, not that content will be included. Maybe I can change that to be easier to understand.(olive (talk) 17:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC))

Compromise Lead?
That used to be the opening paragraph of the lead. A lot of alteration and compromise went into the following lead changes, but does it count for anything? Now we have:

If we added what North8000 has said he wants all along, and what S Marshall himself suggested before his goal changed, we would have:

Still no way, no how, right, S Marshall? Nothing even close to it? I know you've become hardened, but you will have to deal with compromise, one way or the other. There's an easier way than the "hardened" way. Doc  talk  01:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Very well. In the interests of compromise, I'll support that if consensus for it can be achieved.  I will drop the subject if the edit sticks, which for the avoidance of doubt means that you will be able to remove the underdiscussion tag without objection from me.  I will continue to argue that "the threshold" should be amended, though.— S Marshall  T/C 01:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The threshold issue will be addressed, of course. If this particular suggested edit is made and no one reverts it, it would be the basis of a new consensus, based on compromise. It retains VNT, but keeps it far less prominent in the expanded lead; and the introduction of factual inaccuracies is clearly stated not to be allowed by the "not truth" part. What does, everybody else think? Doc  talk  01:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ...and the introduction of factual inaccuracies is clearly stated not to be allowed by the "not truth" part.
 * This smacks of backdoor OR and a license to do so. It's horrendous. That's what I think. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree: Whether editors believe something is true or false is irrelevant to inclusion in Wikipedia. Be— —Critical  06:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not take a look at the versions transferred to Verifiability/Workshop and work on them there? NewbyG  ( talk) 11:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Given the edits above

 * I suspect that given the edits above we probably need to go back yet another step and start a clean sheet from first principles. Do we want the policy to say we should include everything sourced, regardless of its truth or falsehood?  Or do we want the policy to say we can remove unsourced material that's known to be false?  If so, who is the person who determines its truth or falsehood?  (I hope this isn't going to turn into an exercise in epistemology.) My position is well summed up in two of Jimbo's bons mots: (1) "We only want true things in our encyclopaedia, and we want to verify them"; and (2) "We are not transcription monkeys".  In other words, I think that in many cases editors can tell the difference between truth and falsehood, and I also think that where we can, we should.  I think can decide which is which on the basis of good faith talk page discussion.  And I think we have a basic duty to our readers not to lie to them if we can avoid it. I also think that it should be possible to remove sourced but untrue content.  In the case of a BLP this would include sourced but suspected untrue content (such as criminal allegations that have yet to be decided by a court, for example) if editors come to a good faith consensus that the said material should be removed.— S Marshall  T/C 12:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For the next 5 days I'll only be on the web for brief moments. May be hard to do in depth reviews of proposals. But keep in mind the three underlying structural choices:


 * wp:ver says that truth is not a substitute for meeting verifiability requirement, and is otherwise silent on the issue of truth.
 * wp:ver is such that many folks can invoke it to say that accuracy/truth NEVER matters and may not be invoked in any conversation
 * wp: ver says something to promote accuracy/truth

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like I've had this conversation with S Marshall before, WP:V needs to get out of the truth business and leave this to be covered in other policies guidelines .  Truth has nothing to do with the threshold for inclusion.  Truth is relevant for assigning WP:Due weight including the zero weight case.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Marahall,

I suspect that given the edits above we probably need to go back yet another step and start a clean sheet from first principles.


 * Very much agree

Or do we want the policy to say we can remove unsourced material that's known to be false?


 * We already can... what we can't do is remove sourced material which we believe to be false. I assume you mean:


 * Or do we want the policy to say we can remove sourced material that's known to be false?


 * In which case I say that that would be original research. And if the sources contradict, then you have WEIGHT.

'''My position is ... I think that in many cases editors can tell the difference between truth and falsehood, and I also think that where we can, we should. I think can decide which is which on the basis of good faith talk page discussion. And I think we have a basic duty to our readers not to lie to them if we can avoid it.'''


 * I'm sorry, I just don't believe in human judgment enough to agree with this; it might work sometimes, but it won't work reliably, and when it doesn't work we will have no excuse such as "the sources told me so." We will just be doing original research.

'''I also think that it should be possible to remove sourced but untrue content. '''


 * Only in the case the other sources contradict, and per WEIGHT the untrue information should not be mentioned. Anything else is original research.  Even in the case of BLP, we do not need further protections than those afforded by the current policy.  We are not trying to be nice to people, rather we are trying to be as informative as possible while keeping Wikipedia out of legal trouble.  If there are reliable sources, their content should not be censored.


 * The only time accuracy/truth may be invoked without original research, is that it may prompt editors to do extra research. This very often happens, and it's very valuable.  Using our own judgement rather than relying on the sources, however, is an absolute, completely inviolable bright line which, if crossed, will subvert the founding purpose of Wikipedia, which is to be an encyclopedia which is reliable relative to reliable sources, not the beliefs of its crowdsource.   Be— —Critical  21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If all material has crossed the WP:V threshold for inclusion, no amount of removal from that set, by any rationale, will be anything but verifiable. See also WP:Inaccuracy&mdash;in cases like the correct spelling of Prior's or Pattison's last name, you are claiming that people reliably have two and three last names just because no reliable source refutes any of the spellings.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, nice essay "Readers may want to be aware of apparent inaccuracies or patterns of contradictions as part of their reading. Apparent inaccuracies of a lesser note can be relegated to a footnote. Ultimately, with allowing for due weight considerations in how the material is presented, and notwithstanding copyright violations, the only reason to exclude verifiable material from the encyclopedia is because it is insignificant." I think it says it all, and we should follow that advice.  Be— —Critical  07:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No opinion on the wording of the policy, but I haz an example at Zooey Deschanel. Family history in the Deschanel family must say that they are descended from French president Paul Deschanel, because Zooey said it to Paris Match in an interview. A couple of people on the talkpage opined that it couldn't be true because of various unsourced information they had (or did not have - this is the peril of unsourced information) access to. For a long time the article carried the sourced information.  There were no other sources until just recently a French genealogist researched the alleged link and published his findings, which was that they are not related.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What I would have done in that case is say that she reported that she was related and leave the reference, but that a French genealogist published findings that disproved it (with a ref). But now, with no mention of either report and no sources, it's like it never happened. Doc   talk  22:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to respond to Becritical, I think that accuracy and truth is often invoked without original research. I think that editors generally try to evaluate the sources they use, so as to form a view about which source is the most reliable (and if they aren't evaluating their sources, then they should be).  I also think that the process of evaluating sources does require the exercise of editorial judgment.  It's not "original research" to evaluate sources, it's merely good editorial practice.  And in some cases, the outcome of evaluating a source might be to decide not to use it, i.e. not to republish its claims. Now, when we evaluate a source to decide how reliable it is, we're looking for evidence of fact-checking, peer review, the academic qualifications of the author, whether the source agrees with the mainstream consensus, whether it's cited by other reliable sources, and all the other things that make a source more reliable.  All of these things also make the source more likely to be true.  Don't they?  Because by looking for reliable sources, what we're trying to achieve is an article that's balanced, that's in accordance with the mainstream academic consensus, that's accurate, and that's generally likely not to mislead editors.  In short, an article that's true.  There's no point looking for reliable sources unless we're aiming for accuracy, and indeed the whole concept of a "reliable" source makes very little sense unless you make the link between reliability and truth. In other words, I think WP:V is aiming at truth through verifiability.  I don't think it's aiming at verifiability at the expense of truth. As an aside, I also don't agree with you when you describe "the founding purpose of Wikipedia" because the de facto founder of Wikipedia, the guy who can tell you what its founding purpose really was back in those days, has been quite clear that he doesn't like VNT and he wants that wording to be changed.— S Marshall  T/C 23:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The history of reliable sources may militate for what you are saying. Certainly, our technology would indicate that we have gotten certain things right.  But in evaluating reliable sources, we are looking for the scholarly consensus, not for truth. Truth, with a capital T, is not for humans, and certainly not for WP.  Truth with a small t is scholarship, and that's what we're looking for.  VnT is poorly phrased, because you have to read the word "truth" as having a capital T.


 * Thus:


 * "Because by looking for reliable sources, what we're trying to achieve is an article that's balanced, that's in accordance with the mainstream academic consensus, that's accurate, and that's generally likely not to mislead editors. In short, an article that's true."


 * The first sentence is right, the second is only right if you're talking about truth with a small t. We are certainly looking to present the truth of what the balance of scholarship says, but that is not generally what people think of as truth.  To put it another way, we are not looking for truth, we are looking for the truth about what the RS (on balance per WEIGHT) say.  Be— —Critical  07:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Delete sourced untruth? An example

 * This brings to mind a dispute that happened last year about the article Mithraic Mysteries. One editor wanted to include the claim that the birthday of the god Mithras used to be celebrated on December 25. Another editor objected vehemently that the claim is nonsense… Nonsense or not, the claim in question does appear in published work by at least one well respected academic writer on Mithraism (Martin Vermaseren), although it is emphatically rejected by others (Roger Beck and Manfred Clauss)…Clauss mentions that there was indeed a festival of sun-worship on Dec 25, but that it was a general sun-worship thing, rather than being about Mithras as such. In a case like this, what is WP to do? Current policy, as I understand it, means we can include the views of all three: Vermaseren, Beck, and Clauss... Or is it our job to decide who is right on this point, and who is wrong, and leave out the wrong stuff? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! Not sure if we can help you with that sort of question, unless they's some experts lurking the talk page, helpfully. NewbyG  ( talk) 01:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Non-expert answer. It is verifiable that Vermaseren supports that claim. It is verifiable, you say, that Beck and Clauss refute that position, referring to Vermaseren. These are all reliable sources, yes?
 * Then, the editors at the article page will have to decide of how much of that verifiable material needs be summarised, or reported in the article, bearing in mind how many bytes are already allocated to matters of more import to the Mithraic mystery tradition. You see, it wouldn't go in the lead section. And wp:Undue Weight comes into play. Haffta sort it out at the talk page, I guess. Thanks, anyone else got an idea, better? NewbyG  ( talk) 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It's kind of a good example of where we would do something different if we could decide on truth or falsehood on our own. Under the current rules, we include all three per WEIGHT (assuming there are just three experts and one disagrees).  But if we could decide truth or falsehood on our own, we might figure out that X must be right, so we would not include the minority view.  Or we would state it as "X says this, but it is not true because Y and Z say otherwise and they make more sense."  Not deciding truth or falsehood for ourselves is a bring line which we can't cross without destroying Wikipedia.   Be— —Critical  06:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, if we could decide truth or falsehood on our own, we might figure out that we could rule the universe. NewbyG  ( talk) 20:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to help, Newbyguesses. The point I was trying to make wasn't so much about the Mithras article, as about the general principle of verifiability and truth. And about the proposition that WP should exclude stuff that is untrue, even if it is sourced to an RS. If WP was edited by specialists only, that proposal might be viable. The point is WP is not edited by specialists only. And when the specialists disagree, I don't think we can or should (as Wikipedians) try to identify and delete what is wrong. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, just thinking about, How about :  In Vermeseren, it is stated that 25 December corresponds to M's birth date celebration.(1) In Kroutts Clauss,(2) and also Beck, 25 December is ascribed to  a pagan celebration day, not associated with M- (3).reffs
 * Then, the editors get to discuss where it fits on the page, or if it fits or gets on the page. That's my suggested modus operandi! Thank you, user, thanks anyone who can improve on that, (probably)  NewbyG  ( talk) 05:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He's not asking for specific advice, he's giving us an example to work with. Be— —Critical  06:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeawh, thanks I don't quite understand here


 * 1) in the Mithraic example
 * 2) the material is all true (small t)
 * 3) and no material gets deleted. That's how I read it'.
 * 4)  Under the current rules, we include all three per WEIGHT (assuming there are just three experts and one disagrees).  Ah,yes.
 * 5) Can #someone, like, explain this example here some other way, maybe?  NewbyG  ( talk) 08:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I will try to explain... S.Marshall has written "I also think that it should be possible to remove sourced but untrue content."… Well, the statement that Mithraists had a festival on Dec 25 was considered untrue by a WP editor who had spent some time looking at primary as well as secondary sources. That editor considered (no doubt in good faith) that the Mithraic Dec 25 thing was a complete misconception, which WP should have nothing to do with. But other editors (including myself) argued for including it because it could be sourced to an RS. Well, right now, the way the article treats the question is along the lines of what you've said should happen. Which accords with current WP policy re verifiability and truth. But, as Critical has pointed out, if the policy was changed along the lines suggested by S.Marshall, then a question like this might be dealt with very differently. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, I think. Now, -might be dealt with differently' ... by whom? By the editor doing the research in the first place? By editors at the talk page? Different in what way? Thanks,:: -possible to remove sourced but untrue content? Yes, in some circumstances, I think, but not as a matter of course. It is kept usually, as described here. NewbyG  ( talk) 12:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "... by whom?" Well, by anyone. Once a policy is in place, anyone can implement it, can't they... "Different in what way?" As Critical says: "if we could decide truth or falsehood on our own, we might figure out that X must be right, so we would not include the minority view. " Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh. Thank you. How does anyone implement it? When, then, do they implement it? When they are thinking about what to write, or when they discuss it on the talk psge? How would the "change in the wording" of the policy page affect the actions of editors? This is what I am not understanding. 19:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) NewbyG  ( talk)


 * When I said that the policy should allow editors to remove sourced but untrue content, I was referring to edits such as this one made to our article on evolution. This is exactly what I mean when I say the business of encyclopaedia writers is evaluating sources.  Verifiable content was removed after an editor had evaluated the source being used. Kalidasa 777 and Becritical, please can I draw your attention to Talk:Evolution?  I would be particularly grateful if you could read Talk:Evolution/FAQ which, I think, explains exactly why editors do need to be able to remove sourced but untrue, or sourced but suspect, content from articles.— S Marshall  T/C 18:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is how editors decide to exclude a claim. Exclusion based on quantity and quality of sources is OK; exclusion based on editors' analysis, synthesis, or experiments are not. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very much exactly. Now, to me, this thought seems to contradict "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability"; it suggests that verifiability is one of several thresholds for inclusion.— S Marshall  T/C 20:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To me "threshold" means a minimum requirement. If it isn't verifiable, it's out. There are other criteria that are considerations, but not minimum requirements. For example, is it interesting, encyclopedic, or suitable for the intended audience of the article? Some other minimum requirements are compliance with copyright law or not an advertisement. "Threshold" doesn't seem quite the right word for these situations; these are more in the category of law and policy violations. So off the cuff, I can't think of another requirement that is a threshold in the same sense as verifiability. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relevance is an example of another threshold in the same sense. I could produce excellent sources to prove that Barack Obama is black, but if an editor were to introduce that fact into an article about hydrangeas, it would be reverted.— S Marshall  T/C 01:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would need to dig around in order to find the discussions, but I have been on the loosing side of discussions where sourced assertions were deleted because they were determined by editorial consensus to be untrue. The argument for doing that, as I understand it, goes something like this
 * WP:DUE requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.
 * A source deemed generally reliable may be unreliable on some topics.
 * Individual assertions by a source deemed generally reliable for a topic may, individually, be unreliable.
 * An untrue statement is unreliable.
 * A source deemed generally reliable for a topic is unreliable for assertions determined to be untrue.
 * WP:DUE does not require that such assertions be given due weight, regardless of their prominence, because they come from sources not reliable for those particular assertions.
 * Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Addressing the question posed by the OP, the most important point is that this here is the wrong policy to provide a ruling on the matter. All three scholars' opinions are verifiable, because they have published them. This is all that WP:V is (or should be) good for. If scholars disagree among themselves, this is a matter for NPOV, i.e. representing points of view in due proportion to their published prevalence. Is the dissenting opinion a clear error, unsupported by anyone else, perhaps something that has only appeared in a newspaper, but otherwise flies in the face of complete agreement between all relevant scholars? In such a case it may be essential to drop the content, based on WP:DUE. But if there is a genuine debate or scholarly controversy about what the truth is, then it is vital that significant minority viewpoints be represented as well. That's the judgment editors have to make.

It is not just newspapers but scholars too that can be dead wrong. I recall one case where a scholar, in a short-ish biography, said the subject was arrested and died in custody, when dozens of newspaper reports and other scholars described the subject's release from prison, his move to another country, and several years of prominent and newsworthy activity in the other country after he left prison. In such a case, the mistaken source deserves no weight at all – but these are judgments subject to editor consensus. That is why it is so important that we improve the "not whether editors think it is true" wording, because what editors think does matter provided it is based on proper research. -- J N  466  02:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a very interesting and pertinent example -- the person who one report says died in prison, while others say otherwise. I've put my comment on it in a new section below: "When reliable sources disagree"... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Darwin, truth/untruth, fringe/mainstream
Hi S.Marshall, thanks for the links. It is good to have an example of the sort of issue you're concerned about.

The Talk:Evolution/FAQ page explains that this page is about the current consensus among the overwhelming majority of biologists, and is not about objections to evolution that have been raised by non-biologists and a very small minority of biologists. The FAQ is based on existing WP policies, which are mentioned in it. So far so good... The recent edit you linked to concerns an attempt to situate Darwin in intellectual history (difference between Aristotelian and 19th century notions of "species"). It was deleted on the grounds that it was a fringe viewpoint, and that the source given (Louis Menand) is not a specialist on Darwin. Although Menand does seem to be a very prominent writer re 19th century intellectual history, whose book The Metaphysical Club won a Pulitzer prize.

Are Louis Menand's cited views about Darwin untrue? I don't know. I am not even sure that they are "fringe", in the sense of being "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." (That is a definition of "fringe" given inFringe) I can't see a conflict between Menand's views and the current scientific consensus mentioned in the FAQ.

IF (hypothetically) Menand went on to argue that because Darwin worked within a 19th century intellectual environment, therefore Darwin's findings should be disregarded by scientists of the 21st century... in that case Menand definitely would be arguing against the mainstream scientific view... and would indeed be arguing a fringe position. But has Louis Menand made such an argument?? I couldn't see it in the passage that was cited. It is very important to distinguish between what a writer has actually said, and what a reader may suspect that the writer is implying or suggesting or trying to say.

S.Marshall, I agree with you that verifiability can't be the only criterion (or "threshold") for including something in a particular WP article. For instance, another criterion is whether sourced material is within the scope of a particular article. As the FAQ says, the Evolution page is focused on evolution as understood by mainstream biologists today. It does contain quite a long section about the "History of evolutionary thought"; however this topic also has a page of its own: History of evolutionary thought. Possibly that history of evolutionary thought page would be a more appropriate place to add RS material about 19th century notions of species in comparison to Aristotelian notions.

Bottom line... Distinguishing "fringe" from "mainstream" is not always easy, but WP editors need to try. Distinguishing "true" from "untrue" is even less easy. Is it really the role of WP editors to try to do that? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you that verifiability can't be the only criterion for inclusion. For a long time now, I've been trying to replace "The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability" with "A criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability" in order to address this. I also agree with you that distinguishing "true" from "untrue" is not always easy.  In some cases, it is easy; here's one that you can probably figure out even if you aren't a professor of epistemology. :-) This is, once again, a matter of how you weigh sources: the question is, in an article called "age of the earth", do we rely on (a) the mainstream scholarly consensus from geologists and astrophysicists, or (b) the Bible as interpreted by young earth creationism? Nevertheless, I've observed that the idea that mere Wikipedians could tell the difference between truth and falsehood does cause some editors to experience strong concern.  My ideal solution would be to remove all reference to "truth" from this policy.  (Basically, I think this policy should explain what verifiability means, and it shouldn't explain what verifiability doesn't mean.) So if you add up all the changes I think need to be made to that sentence and mash them together into one edit, what you get is:  "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" → "A criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." I'm afraid this proposal is rather controversial, though.— S Marshall  T/C 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think a distinction has to be made between "inclusion in Wikipedia" and inclusion in a particular WP article. Well-sourced material about cats does not belong in an article about camels. WP should and does include sourced information about Young Earth creationism. That information quite rightly does not go on the page presenting mainstream scientific findings about Earth's geological history... Can WP editors tell the difference between true and untrue? Well, certainly individual editors can make up their individual minds about what they regard is true. The question is whether editors can come to a consensus about what is true? That would be difficult, when you consider that the WP editor is anyone who clicks on the edit button on the top of a page. As such, editors inevitably include a complete spectrum of philosophical, religious and political positions... Including, for instance, the person who tried to fix up Age of the Earth, to bring it into line with young-earth creationism. Assuming good faith, that particular editor holds it to be true that the Earth is 6 thousand years old, and therefore wished to remove the supposedly untrue statement that it is 4.54 billion years old. What do we say to someone like that? Do we say: "Your beliefs are quite wrong. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you will have to recant those wrong views, and believe the same stuff the rest of us do." Or do we say: "Your beliefs are your own business. But the statement that Earth is 4.45 billion years ago is verifiable as the mainstream scientific position. For that reason, even if you are convinced it is quite untrue, you will be wasting your own time if you try to take it out." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Kalidasa 777. That's an admirably clear, concise and focused post given the complexity of what you're saying, and I want to say that I'm finding you a very pleasant interlocutor. You make three points which I'll address in turn. Firstly, you draw a distinction between inclusion in WP, and inclusion in a particular WP article.  I agree, and I don't think it's possible to come up with a pithy one-paragraph summary of the criteria for inclusion.  In fact, an accurate and balanced account of WP's criteria for inclusion would make quite a lengthy essay.  I also think that WP:V is not about the criteria for inclusion.  What WP:V is about is te need to attribute anything challenged or likely to be challenged.  I think that for the purposes of this policy all we need to say is that verifiability is one of the several criteria for inclusion. Secondly, you ask whether WP editors can tell the difference between true and untrue.  I don't think that's a question with a binary yes/no answer.  In some cases we can certainly tell the difference.  In other cases there's a genuine discussion to be had, and in still others, editors will never be able to agree.  How to handle the difference between truth and untruth is complex, involving as it does both questions of article content and questions of editor conduct.  I don't think WP:V is about truth or untruth, though.  I think WP:V is about the need to attribute anything challenged or likely to be challenged.  I do not see any reason why we need to mention truth in WP:V at all.  I can see a case for a separate essay on the subject and would be interested in helping to build one. Thirdly, you ask what we say to someone with unconventional beliefs, and you offer a choice of two answers.  I wouldn't use either of them, to be quite honest.  I don't think WP:V is about how to deal with editors with unconventional beliefs, though.  What WP:V is about is the need to attribute sources for anything challenged or likely to be challenged.  I don't see any reason why we need to talk about how to handle editors with unconventional beliefs in this policy at all. In short, I think WP:V should be about the principle of verifiability and it should not be about anything else.  Over the years, WP:V has been hijacked: it's stopped being a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of why we attribute sources and it's turned into a disguised treatise on how to deal with truth-warriors.  I think we need to refocus on the verifiability aspect and take dealing with truth-warriors to a separate essay.— S Marshall  T/C 12:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words about my last message! Your expression "truth-warrior" is certainly relevant to situations we've talked about (including the Mithraism page), and it probably does deserve an essay of its own. But does any reference to this in WP:V really amount to a hijack? As you've said "What WP:V is about is the need to attribute sources for anything challenged or likely to be challenged." An issue I see as closely related is: Whether (or to what extent) material is protected from challenges if it does indeed have a verifiable RS? And isn't a "truth-warrior" exactly the sort of person who does a lot of challenging, presumably in good faith, even against sourced verifiable statements? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say that any reference to truth-warriors in WP:V amounts to a hijack. What I said was that the current version of WP:V amounts to a hijack.  I think the role of the lede should be a balanced introduction the concept of verifiability that's aimed at good faith editors who may not have come across the policy before.  I don't really approve of our present tactic of using the lede of WP:V as a great big club for beating truth-warriors over the head with. You mention the related issue of to what extent material is protected if it's reliably-sourced, and that's an interesting question.  In my experience, as usual with Wikipedia there's no real consensus.  Editors seem to lie along a spectrum from the ultra-inclusionist to the ultra-deletionist, with the more intelligent editors generally having a balanced, nuanced view that begins with the words "it depends on..."  But also, I think that's already covered under the WP editing policy and specifically WP:BURDEN.  I don't think we need to reinvent that particular wheel in WP:V, so all we need to provide is a pointer.— S Marshall  T/C 09:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts and some questions
Blueboar, I will summarize one important question. It follows from NPOV that significance guarantees inclusion, so my question is about simple facts that aren't particularly significant unless they're true. For example, Zooey Deschanel's kinship with a former French president is relevant biographical information if it's actually true, but not so relevant if it isn't. Consider this statement from the Inaccuracy essay: "Potential inaccuracy is a reason to reduce the due weight that is assigned to such material."

Above, Wtmitchell shows a chain of reasoning by which people can argue that "an untrue statement is unreliable" and thereby deny the inclusion of material from otherwise reliable sources. That's clearly problematic. However, the reasoning in WP:REDFLAG does require editors to assess the individual plausibility of a statement (by judging its coherence with a specified set of propositions, namely those published in other reliable sources.) So, to what extent should the plausibility of a statement influence the weight given to it?

Personally, I think it's absolutely essential that weight assessment is as inter-subjective as possible. It can be complicated, as in WP:MEDASSESS, but it shouldn't depend on individual bias. Does this entirely rule out any consideration of the propositional content though? Vesal (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My guess is that your thought is very good, even if one can't understand it from from your post. Could you state it more directly?  Thanks.  North8000 (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's take a best-case example: an RS, A, which says "any source with factors X and Y is untrue," and then a reliable source, B, which has factors X and Y. An editor could do their own analysis and say "according to RS A, source B is untrue."  But even in that best case, where an RS clearly states exactly how we should consider the content, it would be considered OR.  Thus I don't know of any situation in which consideration of the source's content is allowable.  In cases where we think a statement is untrue, we don't get to use our own judgment.  Rather, we have extra motivation to research, and that extra motivation is the only influence our judgment should have on the outcome of our writing.   Be— —Critical  03:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, this answers my question. If source A demonstrates, but does not explicitly say, that source B is wrong, you have three options:
 * Include only source B, and dismiss the relevance of A as original research.
 * Include both A and B, hoping you can get away with original synthesis.
 * Remove source B, claiming that its reliability is disputed by the evidence from A.
 * It seems that you would prefer the first option, but my impression is that current practice actually is to remove source B. Since there is no proper process described in policy, it really comes down to brute force application of WP:DUE and WikiLawyering, as described in Wtmitchell's post. Instead, wouldn't it be better if the legitimate ways of taking content into account, if there are any, were clarified. And North8000, I hope this was a bit more clear, but I'm not sure your optimistic assumptions about my thought processes are entirely justified. Regards, Vesal (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If I understand your example... I would have to say: IT DEPENDS on where you are discussing the conflict between the two sources ... I would agree that we could not discuss the truth/untruth of source B in the text of an article (because doing so would be OR)... however... we certainly can discuss the issue on the article's talk page (NOR applies to article content, not talk page discussions).
 * Also, you leave out something important ... assessing the relative reliability of source A and source B (ie deciding which source we trust more). This is best determined by finding out what lots of other sources say on the subject.   This essentially is how we determine how much Weight to give each source.    Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relative reliability can be important, but assume source A is far more reliable. The problem is that source A is only indirectly disputing source B. Including source A in the article would be original research, presumably because we cannot as non-experts be sure that A genuinely relates to B. So, how can we then be qualified to say that A serves as evidence against B on the talk page? This was perhaps the main problem that some editors, such as Maunus, had with the RFC proposal. There, you had stated that "assertions of untruth are more complicated" than assertions of truth. How can we justify this disparity? Why is the amount of original research you trust editors with much higher when taking out material than when including material? Vesal (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just the question!
My above post is quite messily arguing and asking questions at the same time. Please just consider the critical sentence from Inaccuracy: "Potential inaccuracy is a reason to reduce the due weight that is assigned to such material." Do you agree with this or not? Vesal (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, that statement is correct. If you have really strong reasons to believe that a source is inaccurate (say, it declares that a building is 30 miles tall, and you strongly suspect that the author meant to say 30 stories tall), then you should either omit the extremely dubious material altogether, or you should not give it very much prominence (and perhaps qualify it with WP:INTEXT attribution).  It would be rather embarrassing to have the article go on and on about the incredible building that's nearly sixty times taller than the previous record holder and somehow escaped everyone's notice until you found this source that says it's 30 miles tall, right?
 * The challenge for editors is this: they're almost never going to see a case that is so obvious as the 'typo' I give as the example here.  How to handle a source that seems dubious to editors is a complicated task, especially if you don't have a lot of other sources.  If one source out of 10 disagrees in a way that seems like an obvious mistake, you can just quietly omit it, but if one source says X, and another says Y, and both X and Y seem possible, then it's not our job to decide which one of them is "inaccurate".  In that case, we want to present the fact that the sources disagree to the readers.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

When reliable sources disagree
I don't think anyone here is arguing that Wikipedia can include a "truth" which no reliable source supports. Or that Wikipedia can exclude a "truth" about which all reliable sources agree.

Is this discussion about "truth" and "thresholds" really about what to do when reliable sources disagree? Perhaps there should be a section on the policy page with a heading like "When reliable sources disagree"...

This section could note that, on many disagreements between reliable sources, it would be downright impossible (not to mention undesirable!) for Wikipedians to develop a consensus about who is right. Precisely because Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia everyone can edit", its editors will inevitably not agree as to the rights and wrongs of scientific, historical or philosophical controversies.

Despite which, there may be cases where Wikipedians can and should find consensus about who is right. For instance – an example raised above by JN466 – what if just one usually reliable source says that a noted modern politician died in prison in a particular year, but a dozen other reliable sources report that the person was released from prison and went on to do notable things for years afterwards??

In such a case – even though we Wikipedians have different views about just about everything – we might be able to agree that the "died in custody" report was an outright blunder, and give it no weight at all. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The problematic cases involve a small element of original research; otherwise, it's simply a matter of WP:DUE, business as usual. For example, a newspaper reports something which can be shown to be wrong, and everyone can see that it's wrong, plain as day, because there is some publicly accessible data source that contradicts it. For example, The Register says an editor on Wikipedia did this or that, but the Wikipedia contribution logs clearly show this was not the case. Raw data sources, such as Wikipedia contribution logs, are not "reliable sources" for inclusion, but can such evidence influence exclusion of material? Vesal (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think the discussion is only about how to give the right WP:WEIGHT to differing sources, although it is sometimes an over-lapping problem. The policy page here is quite literally about the fact that there should be sources thqt can be named and checked. Indeed some of the concern about the "not truth" wording is that it distracts a bit from this simple point and can also lead to misunderstandings about other policies such as WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking that this is not a problem with VNT as such but, rather, might be a problem with using the term threshold therein. Here I capsulized some discussions about exclusion in which I've been involved. I'm now thinking that the VNT statement in the lead might need a clarifying footnote to the effect that Verifiability is one necessary criterion (one necessary criterion vs. the threshold), and Truth (with a capital T) is not&mdash;followed with an explanation about how a verifiable reference to the utterance of a falsehood, if that utterance has due weight, does not fail the inclusion requirement of V, but still needs to pass the inclusion requirement of DUE. I'm not happy about intertwining policies in this way, but it looks to me as if there are more plusses than minuses to doing that here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really see a problem in the example. "Former minister X was reported in 1990 to have died in custody.[ref] Reported later actions by X[ref] suggest that the 1990 reports were inaccurate." If we plainly state the things that cause us to doubt the reliablity of the earlier report, readers will figure it out even if we don't have a Samuel Clemens quote saying "Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated." LeadSongDog  come howl!  14:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure... we could mention the verifiable fact that someone reported that the minister had died in 1990, and then counter it by mentioning the equally verifiable fact that there were subsequent reports indicating his survival... However, the question is: must we mention these facts? The answer to that question is clearly "No". We are allowed to use editorial discretion and consensus to decide which verifiable facts are worth mentioning in an article, and which are not.  The next question is: should we mention these particular verifiable facts in this specific article?  Answering that question has nothing to do with WP:V.  It is a matter of editorial judgment and applying WP:DUE.   Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be helpful to introduce a third term to our discussions... in addition to "inclusion" and "exclusion", we also have "omission". When we decide that some verifiable fact should not be mentioned, we are not necessarily "excluding" it... we are are merely "omitting" it. There is a difference. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We should not be creating false controversies out of RS errors. If one source makes a patent mistake, and another does not, we take the latter and ignore the former, or at best note on the talk page that the one source is in error. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course.  But then there are situations where editors disagree as to whether a source has made a patent mistake or not.  Sometimes (not often, but occasionally) the one dissenting source is actually correct, and multiple sources are simply repeating an error.  The point is... this a WEIGHT issue and not really a verifiability issue.  It is verifiable that the various sources say what they say.  When choosing between them, the debate should be focused on which sources which sources should be given more Weight.  Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The observation above by User:Blueboar that There is a difference (between) excluding and merely omitting is insightful. There are GRAMMAR problems in the lead section. As to grammar, the words "threshold" and most especially "Truth" are so off-putting, that many editors have come here to suggest we re-write. Did I mention that it is in the first instance purely a matter of inferior Grammar? NewbyG  ( talk) 21:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you mentioned it, but you were not convincing. In particular, the phrases in question are as grammatically correct as the famous nonsense sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously".  Perhaps you mean that there is a non-grammar problem with the writing, e.g., that it is semantically suboptimal.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Semantically suboptimal- wish I had said that. I think the wording could be clearer and simpler by simply not mentioning *Truth* at all. Please keep *Truth* out of this policy page, it is about Verifiability. Truth is for the philosophers to mis-understand, not volunteers here to bumble, stumble and crumble over.  NewbyG  ( talk) 07:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The traditional take-home message here has long been "verifiability, not truth", exactly to keep the focus on verifiability, and to prevent bumbling and stumbling arguments about truth. Dicklyon (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Dicklyon, I agree with Newbyguesses here. The way to keep the focus on verifiability is to focus on verifiability, which is the need to provide inline citations for all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged.  "Truth" and "not truth" both have absolutely nothing to do with verifiability: they are distracting irrelevancies that need to be excised.  If you desperately feel the need to retain "not truth" somewhere in a policy, then I would suggest the general editing policy would be a better place than WP:V.— S Marshall  T/C 00:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion tag
Why is the tag still in? I thought there was sufficient consensus to take it out. Be— —Critical 21:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some incentive to leave it alone for now, :O] (olive (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Wasn't there consensus to remove it? Why then would an administrator threaten to block those who removed it as well as those editing against consensus?  Be— —Critical  22:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, there wasn't consensus to remove it.— S Marshall T/C 22:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I find it in extremely poor taste that you and Jehochman "assumed" that the IP editor just had to be one of the seven others that have tried to remove the tag, supposedly logged out to avoid detection. I doubt that any of those editors would be that dumb, but that's assuming good faith. I mean, freaking Prague?! And asking for a CU for a fishing expedition? Ugh. Doc   talk  23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Doc, I've asked you to stop the attacks on me here. This does include being snide, k?  I mean, it's no problem if you do it somewhere appropriate, such as at a RFC/U on me, or on Dreadstar's talk page where your little gang usually goes, but the constant attacks on WT:V are inappropriate and disruptive.  "Stopping the attacks" also includes seriously distorting what happened in order to make me and those who agree with me look bad.  Elen offered to go CU-fishing.  I agreed that since Elen, Jehochman and I could all hear the loud quacking, in the circumstances it would be appropriate, and she went ahead.  On this occasion, we didn't find a duck.— S Marshall  T/C 00:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no "attacks". This is not Elen offering first to run CU - she responded to your request with her own concerns about the IP being a random user. I'm not distorting anything, and I do not consider myself to be part of any "little gang". Doc   talk  00:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is where Elen offered (or to use plain English, threatened) to run the CU fishing expedition that you just attempted to blame me for.— S Marshall T/C 10:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected, and I apologize - I missed that last part of her post. So, the three of you should all be equally trouted for automatically assuming that any of the involved good faith editors would be idiotic enough to log out in order to revert this tag and not expect to get "suspected". Triple trout. Doc   talk  10:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your apology is, of course, fully accepted. Let's get back to the discussion.— S Marshall  T/C 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. The discussion. You do remember which stage of the flow chart we're at, right? That crazy little "compromise" part. Oh, bother! Doc   talk  10:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am also not a member of a little gang, and resent your disruptive and snide attitude here. You are a gang of one, S Marshall, bent on disruption. Please stop attacking editors here with your innacurate and tactical accusations. You who persecute, claim to be persecuted? A sham. NewbyG ( talk) 10:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Everybody please read
I'm not trying to imply bad faith on any side, but I think that everyone involved should read this: I'm sorry if it's been posted before.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * ...but I think that everyone involved should read this: 
 * Or, for a more realistic assessment, just skip the article entirely and proceed to the comments. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I found the article a lot more useful than the reader comments. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What I got from both the article and the comments, is that Wikipedia's policies on OR and Verification can frustrate and disappoint people who either don't understand the policies or who want Wikipedia to be something very different to what it is. OR and V are not just polite ways of saying that we can't publish total nonsense. Many sorts of ideas and arguments may be part of the human search for truth (a phrase used repeatedly by one of the comment-writers), and yet may not be publishable in Wikipedia. For instance, WP recently deleted a page about the idea that Mithraism influenced symbols found on ancient Pictish standing stones. (See Articles_for_deletion/Pictish_Mithraism). I agreed with the delete decision, even though the page was not obvious nonsense by any means. I think it was a genuine attempt to find out the truth and to contribute to discussion. Unfortunately, it was also right outside WP policies, because it offered a new thesis without an RS. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Two points. First, the article is highly misleading in the way it represents things. Of course there will be instances where new research can upend the scholarly cart, but like anything else, we are here to reflect the wider understanding as expressed in the scholarship. It would have been a different matter if, for instance, numerous reviews of such a work in academic journals supporting the validity of the research had been ignored. But that is not apparently the case here. Since the author is apparently right in adducing new evidence in this matter, then surely Wikipedia will reflect that evidence when it becomes generally accepted. The main frustration here is apparently that Wikipedia is as slow as the wider literature to reflect changing ideas. Not only is that hardly a problem, it is to the contrary a great strength in the overall scheme of things. Second, in the comments section, I have to say I found the attitude of "OriginalFrequentPoster" quite funny. Whoever that is, they were clearly a Wikipedian whose own clearly disagreeable and abusive attitude toward others probably got them permanently banned. And now they are reduced to spilling their pent up bile on online comment sections. Reading the week-long (and counting) and increasingly unhinged vituperations of that poor fellow serves as a salutary reminder of the important of sitting down and having a nice cup of tea. Eusebeus (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think your take on "OriginalFrequentPoster" is spot on...Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion...
Could the meaning of the sentence about verifiability and truth be clarified by a couple of sentences like this?

"Editors should be aware that if they add material unsupported by citations, even if they are certain of its truth, it may be challenged or deleted. Conversely, if an editor deletes verifiable information, simply because he or she considers it to be untrue, the information may be restored by other editors."

Words like "may" and "simply" have been chosen deliberately, because I think it is futile to try to define strict dos and don'ts which editors would be supposed to apply in every situation. The very nature of Wikipedia means that in practice any policy is rather like the "pirates' code" in the movie Pirates of the Carribean – "it's not a list of hard and fast rules, it's more a set of guidelines"... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a helpful addition. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Useful suggestion. What needs to be considered is whether it fits well without making the policy bigger for no sufficient reason. (Or can we dream of it actually replacing something?) The thoughts behind the proposal are in themselves useful for discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If it clarifies VNT in a way that everyone can agree with, I would say that in itself would be sufficient reason to add it. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the intent, though I think the wording could be clearer and simpler by simply not mentioning truth at all:
 * "Added material without citations may be challenged or deleted. Deleted information may be restored if it is verifiable." LeadSongDog come howl!  16:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be careful with that last part, as it seems to be giving "permission" to add material with verifiability being the only requirement. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO the "if an editor deletes verifiable information, simply because he or she considers it to be untrue, the information may be restored by other editors." is problematic. It gives one "no brainer-OK" example of reversion of deletion of material  (based on belief of a single editor that it is untrue) which would get widely interpreted as saying that accuracy never matters.  In other words, it makes the main problem worse. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are a couple of different problems here. One is whether accuracy matters – I agree that it does matter, I generally agree with what is said in the essay WP:Inaccuracy. An example from that essay: it may be verifiable that two persons involved in the 1930 Palm Island tragedy has been referred to as "Peter Pryor" and "Maitland Patterson" in some newspaper reports, but according to most sources their names was actually "Peter Prior" and "Maitland Pattison". In a case like this, I would agree that WP should treat the spellings "Prior" and "Pattison" as accurate. And I would support the idea of saying something about this in the WP:V page.


 * Another issue is the "truth warrior". This is an editor — maybe a newbie to WP, maybe both knowledgeable and well-intentioned — who boldly adds stuff he or she considers to be true, or pulls out stuff he or she considers to be untrue... but does this without understanding that verifiability is crucial. It may be "no brain" obvious to seasoned Wikipedians why the efforts of truth warriors can be contested or reverted, but the policy page does need to spell this out for the benefit of the truth warriors themselves. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I partly disagree with Kalidasa on that second paragraph. I agree that it would be helpful if there was a separate essay, guideline or policy section aimed at the truth-warriors, but I don't think it's a good idea to use WP:V for that.  I feel that WP:V should be 100% focused on the principle that everything challenged or likely to be challenged should be supported by means of an inline citation to a reliable source.  If we need a policy page to deal with truth-warriors then I think the appropriate place is the editing policy (and specifically WP:BURDEN, which belongs in the editing policy and not here), since the editing policy is concerned with editor conduct.  WP:V shouldn't be.— S Marshall  T/C 00:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this formulation. It's very good, and, North, verifiability matters, truth does not. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 21:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that accuracy is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement, or are you saying simply that accuracy never matters? If it's the former, I agree with you.   If it's the latter, the I have two questions for you:
 * Where did you get that from?
 * Are you saying that this policy should go beyond the former and promote the latter?
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that accuracy is not to the truth, but to the sources. It's purely about scholarship, and accuracy relative to scholarship is of utmost importance, and accuracy relative to some concept of what editors know or believe to be true or false is irrelevant.  Correcting the sources is not within our prerogative.  So accuracy in regards to truth never matters. Read the section below for a demonstration of exactly why truth should never matter.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure but it's possible that I agree with you in the big picture, and probably agree with you on what should happen on all of the examples that you have given. But I am coming at this from a "nuts and bolts"/ mechanics situation.  I'd like to ask you a question which is not to debate you or prove a point, but to clarify mine and to clarify your thoughts. Example situation:  An otherwise-reliable source and writes something that implies that Martin Luther King Jr. was a KKK member, and that material gets put in an article.  For impression/POV reasons, editor "A" likes the material being in the article, even though he knows it is wrong.  The other editors say "let's just leave that material out, it's obviously implausible and wrong". There are no sources that "MLK was not a KKK member" because sources don't write refutations of things that are obviously false and nobody is really asserting. My question to you is: should policies empower editor "A" to say that policy says that the accuracy argument for excluding material is irrelevant and may be excluded from the conversation (which is on possibly leaving out material) because "truth/accuracy never matters" in Wikipedia. ?  Sincerely North8000 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think maybe you want a different example, because in the entirety of sources on the actual King, the WEIGHT of that one source would not be enough to make it into the article. But say you had the same situation with only three RS.  Then yes, it might get into the article. I recognize the problem that an RS may say incorrect, even obviously incorrect things, and once in a while those inaccuracies will get into articles.  Especially because, as you say, sometimes people don't bother to refute stupid things.  But what is it you feel Wikipedia editors should do about it? Do you feel we should rewrite OR or WEIGHT?  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * North, in your example, you say that the implication is there in an "otherwise-reliable source", but later you say it's something that "nobody is really asserting". Then what is that otherwise-reliable source really asserting? Is it a case of somewhat ambiguous words taken out of context -- e.g. the RS might have written: "Martin Luther King joined the KKK and the Trotskyists in the campaign against daylight saving time." And a WP editor took that to mean that during the anti daylight saving campaign, MLK was a card-holding member of both the KKK and a Trotskyist group?? As Editing policy says "You should read the source, understand it, and then express what it says in your own words." This is about accuracy to the source, as B.Critical says -- editors do need to try and work out what a source is and isn't really asserting....Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a made-up example who's to say. But in the real world example that I drew it from,  the erroneous statement was implied but not explicitly stated, and it was not the core statement of the sentence.
 * To BeCritical and Kalidasa There actually is a real world example which is a near-parallel to the above. My example was carefully structured for dissection/clarity purposes, not as a maneuver.   But nobody has answered my question which goes right to the crux of what I'm talking about. Which was basically "do you think that should policies empower editor "A" to exclude accuracy from that conversation?".  It was not "what should be done in that situation?".   Sincerely North8000 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if it's verifiable and is correct per WEIGHT and every other policy, then it goes in the article. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  03:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. FYI my answer for that particular case would have been for policies (including, of course, wp:ver) to remain silent (and non-invokable) on that, leaving the situation open for editors and other wiki-processes to freely decide whether to include or leave out that material. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

When mainstream science changes…
S Marshall, I just glanced at your user page, where you mentioned various sort of untruth found in WP; one sort being "lies that everyone believes—the theories that tomorrow's scientists will refute". You are right that mainstream scientific views change, and change fast. Less than 2 years ago (May 2010) the findings of the Neanderthal Genome Project caused a major reassessment on an old question: did "archaic humans" such as the Neanderthals ever interbreed with "early modern humans", such as the Cromagnons? It now looks like yes, they did... The once-mainstream theory that they didn't, now seems to be in your category of "lies that everyone believes" (or at least, that a lot of mainstream scientists believed). Of course wiki editors cannot anticipate or predict scientific paradigm shifts, but we can keep in mind that they happen... When we present the latest findings of modern science, we may be telling people the objective truth about nature; and then again, we may not be. This is another reason I think it is quite appropriate to say that WP is about verifiability, not truth. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

AAAAaaaaaaaMEN, preach it brothah! Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 05:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I sound like a science-bashing preacher... In drawing attention to recent changes of scientific paradigms, and raising the possibility of more in the future, I am not suggesting that mainstream scientists will ever again adopt the concept of a 6 thousand-year-old Earth. I would not be surprised at all if the current scientific estimate of Earth's age – 4.54 billion years – were to get revised up to 4.97 billion, or down to 4.16 billion, but 6 thousand years?? It isn't going to happen. Although that is exactly what mainstream scientists did believe a few centuries back, when Sir Isaac Newton was a mainstream scientist. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm quite serious: it's a way of putting that point which I haven't seen before. It is something I've tried to argue, but it's put better here, and I think you made an irrefutable case, which if put to the community would be received.  Another way of putting it would be "Good scholarship rather than truth" or "Good scholarship rather than reality."  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  16:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Glad I've made sense! I like your term "good scholarship" – it is a good way of expressing what a good WP article is...Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed wording for lede: Accuracy and Verifiability
I've been looking over this dispute, and thought it might help to propose new wording that addresses all concerns.

"The thresholds for inclusion in Wikipedia are accuracy and verifiability. Material in Wikipedia must be sourced to a reliable publication to ensure accuracy. If sources are contradictory, outdated or erroneous, editors choose the most reliable information or report that the sources disagree."

The purpose of verifiability is to ensure accuracy, not to mindlessly publish whatever people find. Paper is not magical. Publications sometimes make mistakes or have outdated views. Editors need to apply their intelligence and work collaboratively to find the best sources of information. If the best sources disagree, we can be transparent and say what each source says. Jehochman Talk 15:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Does anybody object to the substance of this proposed edit, and if so, why? Jehochman Talk 21:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental choice is whether wp:ver


 * 1) Encourages accuracy
 * 2) Is silent (neutral) on the topic of accuracy
 * 3) Disparages accuracy as a consideration.

Your proposal is #1,  I think that wp:ver should be #2. Wp:ver actually is #2, but has a few ambiguous words in it which allows it to get mis-interpreted as #3. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)0


 * The threshold is verifiability. Accuracy is not a threshold attribute. To be accurate a comparison is necessary, and a comparison means we have gone beyond the simple identification of the reliable source.


 * Reliable publication should read reliable source. RS are not just publications but may be other forms of communication.


 * What happens to sources which contradict each other lies beyond the verifiability policy. How does an editor choose the most reliable information is again beyond this policy.


 * Editors can report that sources disagree.

For me there are too many problems with this version to endorse it. Thanks for the effort.(olive (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC))
 * What we can take from Jehochman's suggestion is the idea of multiple thresholds. There clearly are.  Relevance, for example, is a threshold for inclusion, in that something irrelevant should be removed from an article even if it's sourced to half a dozen professors three textbooks and a partridge in a pear tree.— S Marshall  T/C 21:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Accuracy is quite different than truth, one needs accuracy when summarizing what a source or sources say. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.  Accuracy of source representation is another concept in policy altogether.  Dreadstar  ☥   21:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Many versions of the lead have been proposed to attempt to come to some compromise so, a unilateral edit probably won't be acceptable given the depth of discussion here. (I noticed your change in text). Edit conflict with Dreadstar. This should come after my statement above. (olive (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC))


 * in considering the proposal I'd suggest one minor change if this is to be done. The last sentence:
 * editors choose the most reliable information or report that the sources disagree.
 * I think would be better if it was changed to editors should choose the most reliable information or report that the sources disagree. I say that because all to often, what is done, and what should be done are all too often very different things.  Other than that the proposal seems reasonable. — Ched :  ?  21:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

There's only one threshold for inclusion, and that is verifiability. None of the other policies come into play unless that threshold is met. 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". 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 ☥   21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not disagreeing with you Dreadstar. I didn't participate in any of those RfC pages, as I learned a long time ago that the "verifiability, not truth" phrase was almost as intractable as some decree from a King.  I'm not even saying I disagree with it .. and when I first questioned it back in 2008, another editor wrote me about 3,718 pages of "why it is the way it is" to explain it to me. (actually I got it after the first paragraph, but I didn't want to hurt their feelings after spending so much time and bandwidth to talk to me. :)). — Ched :  ?  22:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry Ched, that wasn't directed at you, it was just a general comment. :)  Dreadstar  ☥   22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

And we need to be cautious about pushing accuracy here, especially as the threshold - it's an easy slide right into the clutches of Copyright problems. Dreadstar ☥   22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that most would agree with VNT if the interpretations were confined to the intended one, as described by Dreadstar. Essentially reinforcing that truth is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. But such confinement has not been occurring.

I agree that trying to specify accuracy as a threshold would lead to a quagmire. Since wp:ver is about verifiability, it should be silent and inoperative on the subject of accuracy. This means it not trying to require accuracy, and it not being usable to exclude accuracy as a consideration, as the ambiguous 3 words currently allow.

I'd like to see it in a different new policy that "accuracy is an objective of Wikipedia" Including accurate coverage of false beliefs (flat earth) as such, accurate coverage of significant beliefs as beliefs  (the 6,000 year old earth),  and all subject to wp:npov as currently written. North8000 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to invite me to discussions where VnT is being misused, I'd really like to get involved in those and see what the problems are. Dreadstar  ☥   22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Somewhere within the large library that is the archived records of all the various discussions, Ealdgyth had several instances of people wanting to push in information which could be "sourced" to multiple inaccurate sources which had subsequently been debunked. Try either finding it (don;t ask me how, needles and haystacks spring to mind!) or asking her for a few examples.  I know it's infuriated her in some places in the past, so she may well be able to give you some quick answers here.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Second attempt
I think it is important to explain why we want Verifiability: to promote accuracy. To those who want to remain silent about accuracy, why are we talking about The Truth®? Is The Truth® worth mentioning if accuracy is not? I would agree to the following change:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Material in Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable publications to ensure accuracy. If sources are contradictory, outdated or erroneous, editors should present the most reliable information or report that the sources disagree."

This neatly ties together all the concepts and eliminates the toehold for POV pushers to argue for inclusion of dubious information based on verifiability. Verifiability is the threshhold, but it is there for a reason, not as an end to itself, and we have to understand why we need verifiability so that difficult cases (e.g. erroneous or contradictory sources) can be dealt with intelligently. See also Dewey Defeats Truman. Jehochman Talk 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've explained why I believe Truth needs to be placed directly in conjunction with Verifiability, and I've never stated that we should be 'silent' on accuracy, but it clearly should not be the threshold for inclusion, per my comments here and here. Erroneous or contradictory sources are handled by other components of our Content Policies, but the threshold (not guarantee) for inclusion is verifiability.  This does not give an editor license to add incorrect or contradictory content willy-nilly, there are strict Policies on how to handle those types of materials. But none of them are thresholds. Dreadstar  ☥   00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think User:Kalidasa 777 made an excellent case for VnT with this comment. Dreadstar  ☥   00:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Truth is an ambiguous word that should be avoided or explained. From truth: Truth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with fact or reality. It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal..  Which truth are we referring to?  Accuracy, faith, or both? The policy as currently written invites confusion that factual accuracy is less important than verifiability.


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not certainty, nor faith. Jehochman Talk 01:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In context, it means verifiablity is the threshold, not whether editors think the material is true or false. One can make the claim that virtually any useful word is "ambiguous," until the wall of context is encountered.  We follow the sources, not what editors think.  Your own example of Dewey Defeats Truman helps prove the point, editors don't decide if that's true or not, the verifiable reliable sources do.  If it's not verifiable, then it's not included - the way to deal with contradictory or incorrect information from reliable sources is handled by other aspects of content policy.  But the threshold must be met before any other content decisions can be made. Dreadstar  ☥   01:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My issue with "truth" is not that it is ambiguous, but that it is sort of a straw-man substitute for the word accuracy. I say "straw-man" because it has other meanings such as personal opinion and dogma, i.e. baseless opinion.

With yet another example just given, it's becoming clear that maybe 95% somewhat agree but are talking different topics (and have different priorities). The 4 groups I see within this are:

North8000 (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Like VNT because buttresses the verifiability requirement
 * 2) Like VNT because it says we don't pass judgement and exclude one significant view over another
 * 3) Deal in the mechanics / nuts and bolts of the usage of the policy and don't like it's unintended impacts (me)
 * 4) Don't like the general message that "not truth" imparts; an encyclopedia should strive for accuracy. (S Marshall)


 * Why can't we craft something that satisfies all concerns? Clearly a large portion of the community don't like the way the policy currently stands, or else this discussion would have ended long ago.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By "truth" we mean the editor's personal belief. Material in Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable publications to ensure accuracy. If sources are contradictory, outdated or erroneous, editors should present the most reliable information or report all significant views in a neutral fashion."


 * Current wording does not have consensus. If you like current wording, please propose alternatives that satisfy the concerns. Jehochman Talk 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The current wording is the longest standing, stable version so until we have something new that is agreed upon, it is the consensus version by default. However, I'm moving on so good luck and best wishes.(olive (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

Possible quick solution?
My proposal which gained some support and so far no opposition was to add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph:


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

To try to take this somewhere, I'm not asking for the imprimatur of saying that there is a consensus to put this in, but just bit of talk so that it wouldn't be overly crazy of me to try to put it in on a BRD basis. This could be a shortcut to the finish line of a 14 month process that seems to be mired down at the moment. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think your explanatory sentence,"Not truth" means that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement", is fine North and wouldn't mind seeing it included.


 * Threshold in this context seems to me to refer to the first instance where we consider content and its source, the point where can begin the process of identifying content for inclusion. This first step is called, verifying the content and its source to see if it is verifiable. There may well be thresholds for other policies but we aren't talking about other policies here we are talking about the first step in dealing with content, and the verifiability policy.


 * I won't edit war this, and I see that a new editor has added a version which I believe to be inaccurate and which starts the cycle of discussion on that text all over again. So be it. I've compromised on my position, tried to create a version that might be considered for inclusion, and that hasn't seemed to work so I'll leave this to others. I think there are serious syntax concerns with the text in place, by the way, which need work, but again others can deal with this. Good luck and Best wishes.(olive (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC))


 * My concern is that people should not be left with the idea that verifiability is the only thing that matters, or that factual accuracy is irrelevant. We have other content policies, and accuracy does matter. Jehochman Talk 13:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Littleolive oil, I don't think that anyone has rejected your or my ideas, everything seems to just get lost in the ocean of zillions of ideas here which people have gotten wordn out in responding to. What would you suggest regarding "threshold"?  Just edit mine or make a new copy with your idea.  The goal of my wording was to clarify it with respect to the most common examples of accidental confusion or deliberate mis-use, which is basically to in essence say that meeting wp:ver is the only requirement for inclusion.  Usually by arguments that imply that meeting wp:ver is sufficient to force inclusion. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No, not meaning to lay blame at all. I realize versions get lost in the the discussion and I think actually its positive that so many editors have been willing to spend their time trying to get this right. I just can't sink anymore time into this. What we need at this point, in my opinion, is a way to solidify what we have, to select a version and just  go with it rather than go another round on any of the content we've been discussing. I thought we were close several times but then.... apparently not.:O).


 * In terms of what you are saying about threshold: We don't have to say everything in one sentence. Several versions do take into account the propensity for some editors to misuse the policy, my reason for being here in the first place. This is my version again with changes, and I included some of your proposed text. Its not perfect, and I am in no way attached to it, just the easiest version for me to to access. I'll leave it at that, other projects and RL call.(olive (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC))


 * If this last is being suggested as the opening paragraph... it is a step backwards. We should not start with "The threshold for inclusion is..."  we should start with "Verifiability is..."  (This is after all the policy on "verifiability", not the policy on "inclusion".) Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Its not a step backwards, its just  a version, just trying to put it all together so it makes sense. This is the policy on threshold which equals verifiability. The syntax of this version does not in anyway imply this is about "inclusion" . So do whatever you want with it, but please see it as it is. I'm outa here.(olive (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC))


 * Like the others I think that Olive's has some good thoughts in it. My idea might not be as good as many of these but I think that it is more pragmatic and a better chance of being quickly accepted or (tolerated. :-) )   It leaves the existing wording in place and then adds a sentence to clarify those three words. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I just updated the text in an effort to remove ambiguity, but to retain exactly the same meaning of VNT, as commonly understood by experienced Wikipedians. Alleviating ambiguity may help newcomers understand the policy better. Feel free to dive in and make improvement. Jehochman Talk 17:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to say. Your work looks good. But you're sort of using the main policy page as a place to float ideas and invite tweaking of them.  But no other approach as worked so..... North8000 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A thought on "accuracy"
I am not going to suggest any wording... but instead ask a question (which hopefully will open a line of thought for discussion): When we talk about the need for "accuracy" in our articles are we talking about a)  "presenting accurate information" or are we talking about b) "accurately presenting information"? Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Both.(olive (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Given that WP:NPOV says to present all points of view (with due weight) ... shouldn't we make a distinction between them? Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Accurately presenting information" Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My answer would be for wp:ver to require verifiability, and to be such that it doesn't weigh in on and can't be used to weigh in on (for or against) the topic of accuracy. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that our community is best served by adding anything about "accuracy" to this policy. In particular, the proposal at hand is a gift to POV pushers:  It would embolden them to delete verifiable information they disagree with ("You can't say that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, because that's not accurate!") and to add unverifiable or UNDUE information they do agree with ("WP:V demands that we add accurate information, and I'm telling you that the accurate information is that Obama was born on the Moon!").  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"The Threshold"
D'oh. This (as I and many others have pointed out many times before) suggests a "once you pass this, you're inside the door" interpretation.

I infinitely prefer "A fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability ...(etc.)" Does anyone want to point out, really, really clearly and unambiguously (so that an HFA editor such as myself can't misunderstand it) what is wrong with that one?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that this is an excellent and much needed change. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have boldly tweaked that around; we shall see how many seconds it lasts before either (1) it gets zapped, or (2) I get zapped! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Umm, I removed the bit about defining "threshold" as the word itself had already gone. Do you think the definition should still be there?  I'll leave it up to you to do as you see best with it.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 13:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow! Four whole hours!  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 17:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
A dispute resolution case has been filed at WP:DR/N. Anyone may participate. I encourage everyone to work finding conclusion, within the near future, by hopefully particpating there. It makes little sense to discuss this in perpetuity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Basic disagreement over the meaning of VnT
As I see it, our basic disagreement is that some believe that VnT means

Editors must not try to determine whether information is true or false, and it is okay to put verified false information in an article.

These editors believe that to try to determine truth or falsity per se is original research. Members of this group believe that if we think information to be untrue, we should research what other reliable sources say on the subject. We should then balance the sources to reflect the current scholarly consensus per WEIGHT, even if this means mentioning or even stating something we think is untrue. See this section for an excellent argument of why this must be the way Wikipedia works.

Other editors think that if we know something is untrue, we should be able to modify Wikipedia text accordingly.

We need to resolve this dispute before we can get consensus on text to replace VnT. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 19:46, 28 February 2012

Instead of reverting endlessly, which is a form of disruptive stonewalling, editors should dive in and fix the page. Current wording is ambiguous and needs to be made clear. Please, make the text clear that (1) it is not okay to add false info just because some source says so. Sources can make mistakes, be outdated, or may be low quality. (2) Verifiability is not the only policy governing inclusion. To be included in Wikipedia, content must be verifiable, not merely true, and even that which is verifiable might be excluded by other policies. Can somebody please make and edit that addresses these concerns. Current version does not have consensus support. If somebody makes an edit and you don't like it, please suggest better alternatives. Don't stonewall by reverting. Jehochman Talk 20:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You do not appear to fully understand consensus or BRD if you think reverting is "stonewalling". Simply because you are an administrator gives you no special reason to label anyone who reverts your edits as "disruptive". You're hardly the first editor that said, "Heck! I'll jump in and solve this myself!" The policy page is not a playpen for radical changes that, in many cases, have been discussed before. So if someone reverts an edit, it's neither disruptive nor stonewalling. Doc   talk  20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Becritical: The answer is, clearly, both. There are clearly occasions when determining the truth or falsehood of a proposition is original research.  There are also clearly occasions when it's much too trivial to be original research, even when choosing between otherwise-reliable sources.  (For an example of the latter, I can cite a whole platoon of eminently reliable sources that say Pluto is a planet, but anyone capable of understanding this talk page will know that it isn't.)— S Marshall  T/C 20:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, I know you're new to this talk page, so I guess what you need to know to be up to date is that everyone's tried to dive in and change it, and it always gets changed because there is no version yet which can attain consensus. Rather than another round of "my way" no "my way" no "this way," we have to understand and deal with the fundamental problems.  But you and I certainly agree on what needs to be done, in part anyway.  Marshall, I agree with you that there are very trivial occasions when OR/correcting sources is okay.  As to Pluto, this is where we are merely misunderstanding each other:  notice I italicized the word current above.   Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  20:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * BeCritical, what matters here is that there isn't a bright line. Correcting a source is sometimes okay, and sometimes not.  Editors need to decide that on a case-by-case basis.— S Marshall  T/C 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Example
I've finally come across a good example of VnT: When I go to Bing and search for Santorum, I get the alternate definition as the first result (after Bing news). The article says that it is not the first result, but RS (ahem, if you call it that)  say otherwise. I never use Bing, so it's not about my searching history. I know the article is wrong, but I'm not going to question it because the RS say different. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 04:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's a terrible example though. Search engine results are so finicky. You'd have to go back in time to when those articles were researched, and do the search from their own computers. I've done these experiments with people from other states/countries, where we compare search engine results when doing the search simultaneously, and it consistently comes out in a different order for each of us. So your example is not one of a falsehood, but merely a subjective truth. Then again, it's appropriately prefaced by "observers have noted". Someguy1221 (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Only a Wikipedian would call that an appropriate preface, since a reader wouldn't get it. What's important is that the statement is often untrue, and should therefore be removed.  I mean, it's a good example precisely because of what you say, you just added to my research on why the RS are wrong to make that statement.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  17:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, though, your concern amounts to your belief that our readers are too stupid to understand a complex sentence. Sources need only support what's actually written on the page, not what you believe some readers might misinterpret it as.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Too many edits
Jehochman, I like your work but I think that you should discuss a little more before making so many edits to the first paragraph. North8000 (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This page is suffering constipation. There is no need to get permission to edit. My changes have not altered the meaning at all, I hope.  I am copy editing to try to make the lede clear, so that the reader comes away with the idea we want to give him.  Perhaps it would be useful to list here all the ideas we need to convey to the reader. Would you like to start?   We should focus on the substance.  What is most important to me is to remove the naive view that Wikipedia admits false info as long as it is sourced.  No, provably false info is not verifiable. Jehochman Talk 21:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Constipation? I thought it was verbal diarrhea (at least on the talk page). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, actually, I think that your latest version is near-perfection, and pragmatically retains VNT. I was more talking the quantity and rate of edits to a core and sensitive paragraph. North8000 (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The current version does seem to be a very major improvement over how this page has historically read. I strongly hope that it sticks, and I would be most disappointed if it were reverted and filibustered again.— S Marshall  T/C 22:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've been advocating "minimum requirement" for some time now. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  22:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This ad hoc BRD editing of a core policy page has just got to STOP...and NOW. As to the most recent..."...minimum requirement" in lieu of "threshold", that is just plain definitionally wrong. A "minimum requirement" implies "verifiability" might stand alone as justifying inclusion. That's just ridiculous. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Utter nonsense; meeting a minimum requirement does not guarantee inclusion. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) OK, minimum requirement got reverted. Let's see if the rest sticks (or at least lets not get crazy) and if so handle that question separately. (?) North8000 (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * JakeInJoisey, the capslock is unhelpful. BRD editing is how all the policies were built in the first place, and it remains a perfectly acceptable way of improving them.  There is no consensus or rule that prevents BRD editing of policies.  This constant revert-stalling is disruptive.  Please desist, thank you. "The threshold" (singular, definite article) clearly implies that verifiability stands alone as justifying inclusion, so "a minimum requirement" is a step forwards.— S Marshall  T/C 23:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "One of the requirements"? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the current version, the phrase following the dash after VnT, "facts that are true may not always be verifiable" seems to me to miss the point. It makes it sound like we require verifiability, not truth, because there is some kind of problem with checking on edits. The actual point of the VnT phrase is that editors don't get to put stuff here just because they personally "know" it to be true. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But it does indirectly provide the clarification of "not truth" which I feel is needed. North8000 (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How 'bout "a fundamental requirement" "an absolute requirement" "an important requirement" North8000 (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just mucked around with the wording a bit. I like it now. :-) I hope it helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I like Tryptofish's "no matter how convinced you are that some information is true, if the material is unverifiable, do not add it." Jc3s5h (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! But credit where credit is due: I cribbed it from an earlier proposal made by Blueboar. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Another absurd contextual edit which I have reverted. Changing "The threshold for inclusion" to "One of the requirements" sets up a strawman ripe for deletion implying that "truth" is "not a requirement". This is getting old. Stop it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jake, I can understand where you're coming from, but I find the forcefulness of your approach here a little bit too strong / bossy. I know this whole discussion has been going on for a very long time (I've been in and out of it, intermittently), but even though we editors can get fed up with it, calling another editor's good-faith input "absurd" is a bit belittling and demeaning.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 13:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Got the picture yet Jehochman? No agreement on the proper meaning means no agreement on the wording, not that it would be easy even then. Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 02:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yep - no agreement. Serious déjà vu, all over again. Yet another new (to the conflict) editor boldly crosses no man's land, a feverish frenzy of scrambling before the next shells hit, then... WHAM!!! Page protection. It's a lovely little war. Doc   talk  06:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I do find it amusing that Doc9871 and BeCritical are talking about editors who're "new" to the conflict as if they'd been here for a long time. :-)  Anyway, the page is not actually protected, and I think the next stage could be an RFC about the obstructive and disruptive revert-stall-ignore tactics that have enabled a minority of editors to prevail over the majority will for the last year and a half.— S Marshall  T/C 08:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think we've made a bit of progress. North8000 (talk) 10:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hahaha Marshall, you should let the kids have their fun. As to "majority will," policy has higher standards for consensus and WP isn't about majority vote.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  18:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder what the "threshold" is for protecting the page? Anyway, I don't particularly care about threshold versus requirement. And if you look at my edit summary for when I suggested the "one of the requirements" wording here in talk, I predicted then that I would end up regretting the suggestion! Honestly though, anyone who really thinks it's worth getting upset about whether we say "threshold" or "requirement", I feel kind of sorry for you. A requirement is something that is required, something that has to be satisfied. A threshold is something that one has to pass, something that has to be satisfied. Any word choice can, potentially, be wikilawyered, and probably will be. But in plain English, they mean the same thing. Now I know someone is going to reply to me with a tl;dr about how there are differences of monumental importance, complete with examples. Anyway, we tried a bit of bold editing. Now, maybe we should all try to buy into and cooperate with Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-bold next attempt

 * I'm going to try putting in the change bolded under "Possible quick solution" above.  I have proposed this 3-4 times over the last few months and there has never been an objection.  This is still just "B" in BRD, except that I think this history makes it just semi-bold, not bold.  :-)  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Purely from a readability perspective, which is what we need readers to do, the opening paragraph is poor. The combination of plain text, WP:blue link, bold, italics an "words in quotes" in a couple of sentences is a mess. Leaky  Caldron  12:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. But may I suggest pursuing resolution of the core issues separately, and then dealing with the other general improvement issues separately/later? Otherwise IMHO trying to link them all together will keep it mired down.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that people are relying on text style to resolve the core issues! Leaky  Caldron  12:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of that is in the existing text. I do feel that the quote marks in the new text are essential because that point out those words as being subjects in the new sentence.  Of course it is more complex to clarify rather than modify those 3 words, but this is a pragmatic solution that as such avoids modifying those three words. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO the italics could go while losing little. But may I suggest that we go just semi-bold here?   Talk a bit and then do. North8000 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * These edits are becoming more and more absurd (yes, absurd). Here we have yet another elimination of the contextual "The threshold for inclusion is..." which then goes on to explain the meaning of "threshold"...which is the first introduction of the word itself. Corrected. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did mention, above, that the definition of threshold was no longer required; I was leaving it until North had another look. You could, of course, just have gone back to where I removed the unnecessary definition of "threshold", instead of changing back to it, instead of "a fundamental requirement" Jake, I notice that you didn't respond at all to where I said: "D'oh. This (as I and many others have pointed out many times before) suggests a "once you pass this, you're inside the door" interpretation.

I infinitely prefer "A fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability ...(etc.)" Does anyone want to point out, really, really clearly and unambiguously (so that an HFA editor such as myself can't misunderstand it) what is wrong with that one? [18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)]" <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does anyone want to point out...what is wrong with that one?
 * You mean beyond the fact that non-consensus BRD edits continue to be made to a statement of core policy like it was some type of personal sandbox to be toyed with at will? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If we don't use "threshold" we don't have to clarify it. I think we just got out of sync. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jake, please don't get ratty. What I asked was what was wrong with the wording "A fundamental requirement for inclusion", particularly as it gets it away from the "once you're past this, you're in" interpretation. I do find it somewhat disturbing that good-faith editors attempting to clean up and clarify and disambiguate the policy seem to be viewed by you as treating it as "some type of personal sandbox".  I think you may possibly not have noticed that, from the point of view of the other editors attempting to improve this, it's beginning to come across as though you see it as your own personal sandbox, where anybody else's input is subject to your personal veto.  We all have equal ranking over here, and other editors' input can actually help to clarify policy.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 17:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My strenuous objection is to the fostering and proliferation of BRD editing to the detriment of a traditional consensus building process in the formulation of core policy language. I have made note of this at WP:AN.  We need more eyes here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We do, yes. While I do understand the reasons why editors need to be able to object to policy changes, I can personally attest that that one phrase ("The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth") has been subject to constant revert-stalling, for the purposes of preventing change, since November 2010.  In defence of this revert-discuss-stall tactic, editors have cited a lack of consensus in favour of any proposed change.  It is true that at the most recent RFC, which was very large-scale and well-attended, a triumvirate of administrators were not able to find consensus for change; but it's also true that less than 35% of editors are in favour of the status quo.  We now need external eyes to decide two questions:- 1) Whether BRD editing in these circumstances is legitimate or disruptive; and 2) Whether the constant revert-stalling to maintain the status quo is legitimate or disruptive.— S Marshall  T/C 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What do folks think about removing all of the italics to address Leaky's comment above? I think that all of them are in there only for emphasis rather than clarity, so I think that the meaning and clarity would be unaffected. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Replying to North, removing the italics is OK with me, and leaving them is OK with me. Replying to SMarshall, I think the answer to your two questions is that the best thing would be reaching consensus on the talk page before making changes on the policy page, but that isn't working, and neither, it appears, is anything else, so maybe the mediation is worth a serious try.


 * And a comment: with sincere respect for the good faith edits adding the last sentence to the paragraph, I'm afraid nonetheless that it doesn't work at all. We shouldn't have to provide a definition of "not truth" if the sentence just before it explains it. And if we have to provide a definition of "threshold", heaven help us. Perhaps we should also give its etymology and pronunciation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to work out what objection there could realistically be to having "A fundamental requirement" instead of "The threshold". I can't, personally, see that "a fundamental requirement" would be at all problematic. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, I put half back in before I saw this. I will self-revert if you want while we discuss this.  But I feel that explicitly clarifying the meaning of "not truth" is central to resolving this. I.E. not just communicating the intent, but to explicitly rule out other meanings.  North8000 (talk) 19:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

@Tryptofish - Inre your edit...

You are making the same contextual error that all make who attempt to address "VnT" independent of "The threshold for inclusion...". It simply cannot be divorced from its qualifying language without totally misrepresenting the rationale behind its formulation. You are, with your edit and by interpolation, stating that "Truth" is "NOT" a fundamental requirement, a statement which 'The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" in no way implies or is intent on suggesting and, in fact, exacerbates the alleged problem this entire brouhaha is supposed to be addressing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it better after the subsequent edits? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No...it's compositionally horrid. Do your suggested editing here and enough of this BRD nonsense. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Jake, I've read your comments a couple of times, and I honestly do not understand what you are saying, other than that you object to BRD editing of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Trypto, if you honestly believe that...
 * Verifiability, not truth, is not the only requirement,...
 * ...represents good composition (to say nothing of the underlying dispute), then we'll just have to agree to disagree. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Jake, I honestly believe that I'm being polite to you, and that I'm not stupid. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Actually no, that misses the point. But despite your invitation to revert, I'd rather slow down a bit to discuss this.  The core issue in my mind is that people, when it suits their purposes, can use this to assert that "not truth" says that accuracy is never a legitimate consideration in Wikipedia.  (not just that it is not a substitute for verifiability).  And a so a sentence which explicitly rules out that interpretation out I think is essential.   This is sort of a compromise position with the folks that want it completely gone. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that we needed the wording defining what "not truth" means? I don't follow how that wording addressed this concern in a way that the change I made does not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If the issue is someone claiming that "I've got something that's verifiable, so accuracy doesn't matter", then isn't that addressed by saying that the other policies also apply? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While I strongly believe that the alleged "problem" is overstated exponentially (and is, in actuality, a proxy for introducing OR), I have zero objection to further clarifying the meaning behind "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". However (as I recall anyway), several attempts at doing just that have been rejected by attempts to overreach beyond those parameters. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) To Tryptofish That's what I meant. A sentence that can be used to explicitly deflate other interpretations of "not truth" that have nothing to do with verifiability. SO a statement that "not truth means" does that, whereas a statement that just repeats the intent of "not truth" does not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm sincerely not trying to be argumentative, but I'm still confused. Is there a way of accomplishing what you want without framing it as "here is the definition of 'not truth'"? (One of the things wrong with the definition approach is that it reads like a put-down of the phrase, as in "we have to say 'not truth', but we really don't want to say it".) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not taken as argumentative, discussing things with you is always a pleasant experience, and this is useful. One thing that I think makes what I say sometimes seem like Greek is that I am blessed or cursed with automatically seeing the structural logic of what is and isn't dictated by sentences (= wiggle room left), the structure of their use in debates, and the structure of debates. And seeing this in WIkipedia is the backdrop for my thoughts here.    This is different than most folks who see mostly the main thought and the main intended use of what is written.  That said, possibly a way to do that would be to explicitly restate the intention of "not truth".  Like  "This policy uses the term "not truth" is to emphasize that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and likewise to you. I keep feeling like a formulation that defines "not truth", or says how it is used in this policy (as opposed to the plain English meaning of the words), ends up having the effect of "distancing" from the phrase. Could we accomplish such a definition in a footnote? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My own opinion is that it can be anywhere in the policy and still be 80% as effective. Right after where it is used is natural, but it could be elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How about this: at the end of the second sentence, change "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" to "verifiability neither guarantees inclusion nor is an excuse for justifies including material known to be inaccurate". I think that might get at the heart of the matter, and it rightly places it in the context of the other policies. It might also justify deleting what is now the last sentence of the paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sort of swings the pendulum the other way to having wp:ver weigh in on the side of accuracy. That's a whole new huge ball game.  North8000 (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Too bad, I really liked it! Is there a middle position for that pendulum? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I really really like it too!!! But that's besides the point. That could sometimes put it in conflict with wp:npov.  IMHO the middle ground regarding accuracy is is to explicity say what the two oft-misused words ("not truth") are intended to mean in this policy. This eliminates the mis-uses, and leaves wp:ver silent on the topic of accuracy except to say that it is not a substitute for verifiability. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How about: "verifiability neither guarantees inclusion nor permits including material disallowed by other policies"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or (and/or) deleting what is now the last sentence of the paragraph, and putting an inline cite directly after the bolded VnT phrase, leading to a footnote with a definition of nT? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Jake, please try to be a little more respectful of other editors, and stop calling (apparently) any attempt whatsoever to improve and clarify the policy "nonsense". I can understand your frustration, but you really are coming over as "bossing everyone around".  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 20:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I would like to put ""Not truth" means that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement;" back in. If my structural points supporting it are not very clear, possibly the more pragmatic reasoning is useful. With the ambiguous word "threshold" resolved (out), I would consider this addition (or something with does the same thing explicitly), (if it sticks for a couple weeks) to be a sufficient compromise resolution of the overall matter. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, I've been thinking the same thing. From my point of view the current version (with or without North's extra sentence) is quite satisfactory and if it sticks, I would support removal of the "under discussion" tag.— S Marshall  T/C 13:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Or how 'bout ""Not truth" is used to emphasize that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement" North8000 (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I plan to wait a 1/2 day for feedback and then possibly put it in on a semi-bold BRD basis. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That seems almost unreasonably sane, for over here ... ;P <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 14:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, let me add a plus one to that about sanity! In the time since I was last logged in, someone else has changed the last sentence of the paragraph, in a way that makes logical sense (in that "nothing" covers everything, including "truth"), but loses the intended meaning, about explaining the "not truth" concept. I really don't like that sentence in that form: it just sounds like we are saying "verifiability big deal, respect mah authoritay!" So I would also support, in its place, the sentence that North proposes.


 * By way of feedback, and not carping, let me float a few suggestions about tweaking it. Perhaps we could word the sentence in a manner other than saying what not truth "means", for the reasons I said above. How about doing it this way: Have the sentence about VnT (in bold) that we have now. Then, at the end of it, go back to having an em-dash leading to a variation of North's sentence (where we recently had an em-dash leading the the sentence about "no matter how convinced you are"). Thus:
 * Verifiability, not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia—nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it unless it is verifiable.
 * And the paragraph would end there. My thinking is that, when we explain what "not truth" means, we should do it where "not truth" is said, and that makes it obvious that we are defining it without us having to describe it as a definition. Does that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that was good and does the trick.  With two folks liking it, and in the interest of keeping this process moving, I think that that meets the criteria for only semi-bold and I plan to put it in.  North8000 (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I did it. If this settles in, we might have this settled. North8000 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * May I recommend only-semi-bold edits (talk first, get a co-sponsor etc.) while we see if this settles in? North8000 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is looking surprisingly good! It seems that we maybe do have an unusual outbreak of sanity here long may it continue! What we have at the moment is a vast improvement on what we've had for too long. Cumulative small tweaks along these lines may very well end up with us getting something very much less-open-to-creative-misinterpretation, and which will also keep a lot of people happy. Good stuff. [Pesky offers granny-hugs all around] <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we're trying.   We might have even achieved a workable compromise on the hot issues of the 15 month debate. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Defining Verifiability
A few notes on Blueboar's changes (which were in another area). IMHO there are two structural problems with the changes. One is that it makes it appear the goal is that the sources has been accurately represented. IMHO this overshadows or ignores the primary goal which is that the material is sourceable. Second is that it makes it appear that the policy requires verification (cites) on all material rather than verifiability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert or amend... it was a bold edit after all. A trial balloon, if you will.
 * Here is the thinking behind my edit... the previous version started out saying: "Verifiability is the ability to cite...". I don't think that is correct... the word verifiability literally means: "the ability to verify" (or check).
 * Now... If we correct this, we then have to ask: "OK... so what we are verifying?" My answer: We are verifying a statement made in Wikipedia, by  demonstrating that the statement accurately reflects what is said by our sources.  What we are not verifying is the accuracy of the sources (we are not qualified to do that).  If the statement does not accurately reflect the sources, then we must either a) find different sources to support the statement, or b) amend the statement so that it does accurately reflect the sources.
 * As for your second concern, if you read the rest of the lede paragraphs, any implication that the policy requires citation for everything is quickly corrected and clarified. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I might revert but I'm just in semi-bold mode. :-) On the first point I would argue that we are talking about the Wikipedia meaning of "verifiability" as defined by the policy which is, very roughly speaking, the complying with both of the following:
 * Sourcable
 * Sourced if challenged or likely to be challenged


 * On the second point, I would respectfully argue that the lead of the lead should be a summary (or short version) of what follows, not something that is "corrected" by what follows. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes... I am questioning whether these two attributes should continue to be seen as being the "meaning" of Verifiability. I absolutely agree that these two attributes are important... but I think they are how we demonstrate Verifiability... they are not the definition or "meaning" of Verifiability.
 * I suppose what I am getting at is that we need to answer: "What is verifiability, and why is it required"... before we jump to answering: "How do we demonstrate verifiability?"
 * On the second point - The lede is more than the first few sentences... "what follows" is still part of the lede. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I note you reverted... no problem. I was actually thinking of self-reverting anyway... The direction I was headed in obviously needs more discussion.  (and since a new section has been started for such a discussion, below... let's continue there.) Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability case at the Mediation Cabal
Further to the current thread on the dispute resolution noticeboard, I have opened a case at the Mediation Cabal about Verifiability. The aim of this mediation is to resolve both the dispute over the "under discussion" tag, and the wider dispute over the "verifiability, not truth" wording. Please have a look at the case page for more details - it is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Everyone is very welcome to participate. Best regards — <b style="text-shadow:0.15em 0.15em 0.1em #555; color: #194D00; font-style: oblique; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif"> Mr. Stradivarius ♫</b> 14:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I signed in supporting and accepting it, and also said I retain hopes for a faster resolution on another track and intend to continue those efforts. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Your faster resolution may work as a stop-gap... but I'm not sure it can replace the gradual discussion between many participants which Stradivarius has initiated. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have some thoughts on that but let's just see what happens. Roughly speaking I think that both processes are good and worth doing and I'd support and participate in both. But if a faster one succeeds, labeling it as a "stop gap" would mean that its not settled and still "under discussion" for the entire period of Mr. Stradivarius's initiative. North8000 (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything with "stop" in it is good, here. ;) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as people are discussing it, either here or on the mediation page, I would have thought that yes, it is still "under discussion". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We'll just see what happens in the next few days. Will be simpler to discuss the possibilities once we know that. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How WP:REDFLAG is misused to delete content and sources that support a minority view.
WP:REDFLAG: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources"

Any part of a minority view can be seen as an exceptional claim from the mainstream view. Therefore, any part of a minority view requires multiple high-quality sources.

Example:

the claim that "NASA researchers are working on LENR" is supported by multiple verifiable sources:


 * A self published video hosted on a NASA server explicitly stating that NASA researchers are working on the topic
 * An interview with a chief scientist from NASA explicitly stating that research is ongoing. interview transcript
 * A patent on the subject filed by those NASA researchers.
 * 2 NASA technical memoranda describing experiments on the topic ,
 * A peer reviewed paper mentioning among others experiments conducted by NASA researchers
 * Multiple presentations from those NASA scientists stating the research from NASA server, per Freedom of Information Act request by NewEnergTimes.com
 * NASA website explicitly mentioning the topic
 * Secondary sources (russian news outlet) mentioning NASA research on LENR: ,
 * A few secondary sources commenting on the NASA video.

according to SELFSOURCE this should be more than sufficient to include a statement "NASA researchers are working on LENR" in Cold fusion.

However, editors misuse REDFLAG as a reason to delete in 2 easy steps:

step 1) "NASA researchers are working on LENR" is an exceptional claim thus multiple high-quality sources are required

step 2) the provided sources are not high-quality

Questions:
 * What is an exceptional claim ?
 * What is high-quality ?
 * If any part of a minority view is always an exceptional claim and thus always needs multiple high-quality sources, then why do we need WP:PARITY of sources ?

--POVbrigand (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of other editors:  LENR stands for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, which is either exciting new cutting-edge research in cold fusion, or else a theory based on results other experimenters have not been able to replicate, depending on who you believe. "NASA researchers are working on LENR" is not an appropriate claim to make because it misleadingly implies that NASA endorses LENR research.  This is far from the case.  It would be accurate to say that certain scientists who are involved with NASA are involved in LENR research in their spare time.  The question is where you should say it: in the main cold fusion article or in a separate article about LENR?  I would suggest the latter for the time being.— S Marshall  T/C 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * direct quote from video: "Researchers at NASA Langley Research Center are working on ...."
 * Separate articles are denied for being POV-forks. --POVbrigand (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the video does say that. Videos don't have a NPOV policy.  What we should say is that some scientists who are involved with NASA are also working on LENR.  As for "separate articles are denied for being POV-forks", I suggest discussing the matter with JzG, and with the wider community if JzG proves to be intransigent.— S Marshall  T/C 16:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. It was not my intent to discuss the actual content dispute here. I really wanted to highlight how REDFLAG can be misused and discuss how the wording of the policy could be improved.
 * If you want to help us out on the content dispute, please drop by the cold fusion talk page.
 * Uh, what is JzG ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * JzG is the name of the administrator who protected the redirect at Condensed matter nuclear science, which you linked to above. What change to REDFLAG do you propose?— S Marshall  T/C 17:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What to change ? I guess, two things:
 * 1) Exceptional claim - REDFLAG does not apply to an existing significant minority POV. The way I see it is that REDFLAG is for something contrary to expectation. I have heard "REDFLAG" several times when editing in minority view content in 'cold fusion'. It seems that some editors believe that any minority view raises REDFLAG and thus needs "high quality" sources.
 * 2) define high quality - A reliable WP:SELFSOURCE is "high-quality". The demand for reliability is raised to absurd levels. Many times I have heard that only peer reviewed papers from top notch (ie high indexed) scientific journals is good enough to explain minority view. Some editors argue that a journal that published minority view papers is not reliable. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Concept - "an idea, esp an abstract idea"
Where did concept come from in the opening line? Verifiability is a core content policy, not a concept. A concept can often be regarded as abstract. If we cannot get the opening line right then I suggest we leave the rest of it well alone. The latest edits add nothing to the clarity and in some respects make it worse. Leaky Caldron  17:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I came up with that wording in a recent bold edit (feel free to amend). See WT:Verifiability (above) for more discussion about that bold edit.
 * I was attempting to better define what the term verifiability means and why it is conceptually important (ie why we think it is important enough to have a policy about it). I was not making a statement about the specific Wikipedia policy named "Verifiability".  That said, I can understand the confusion... perhaps it would help if we distinguish the policy {ie:  "Wikipedia:Verifiability" ) from the concept behind the policy (the concept of "verifiability")  Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, with a couple of us having issues with it, I think I might take you up on you gracious invitations to revert. Your concept may indeed be better, but I think that it would represent a real change in the policy rather than summarization of it. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem... I was thinking of self reverting anyway... it is obvious that the direction I was headed in needs more discussion. Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the version that is on the page at this time looks real good! Thanks and kudos to everyone who was here since I last logged in. (In partial answer to the opening question, it seems to me that the current wording defines "verifiability on Wikipedia", in contrast to verifiability more generally as an English language word, so I think it's OK to present it that way.) Looking at the new first sentence, two things, both very minor, catch my eye with respect to writing style. (1) Perhaps it might be better to say "the reader's" instead of "the readers'". Obviously, we do have more than one reader (I hope!), but it might flow better in the singular. (2) Where it says "cited reliable", that seems like one too many consecutive adjectives. Perhaps we could drop "reliable" and link "cited sources" instead, or maybe there's another way to accomplish that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Also I would probably argue that LeadDogSong's edit sort of changes it away from the policy definition of verifiability to a more general-concept one.  But that is not one of the areas of dispute and I'm more focused on getting the disputed areas resolved.  North8000 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given how minor the two things I raised are, and what I take as one user's agreement or at least lack of objection, I'm going to make those two changes, in the spirit of "semi-bold" suggested above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but someone else has reverted most of the recent edits. The revert, to what looks to me like an arbitrary place in the edit history, seems rather disruptive to me, especially since the editor apparently has refused to participate in the mediation. I'm still waiting for an explanation here in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that was revert made many changes at once on discussed items, i.e too many things at once. I think that the reverts should be on a semi-bold basis, or at least be of individual edits. I plan to revert the revert.  North8000 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Absent an explanation here from that other editor – and I think there has now been enough time – I want to say very clearly on the record that I support your revert of the revert. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about not a proper edit summary Twinkled by mistake. Fine with that later revert now, I did feel that (3) editors favo(u)red that previous version, still I have only mis-read the consensus here. Fine with the current focused discussion, which I won't be contributing voluminously to, promise. Peace!  NewbyG  ( talk) 00:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good, thanks. I just couldn't see the reasoning behind your revert. Pax! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Procedures to detect demonstrable untruths
Please see User talk:Jimbo Wales (permanent link here). —Wavelength (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Do editors' views about truth ever matter?
When making decisions about what goes into WP, does it ever matter what editors think the truth is? If it does sometimes matter, when does it matter and how does it matter?

Comparing some recent versions of the intro:

1. Revision as of 14:22, 23 February 2012 "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." This one (as I read it) suggests that it never matters what editors think the truth is.

2. Revision as of 20:42, 27 February 2012 (Jehochman) "The thresholds for inclusion in Wikipedia are accuracy and verifiability. Material in Wikipedia must be sourced to a reliable publication to ensure accuracy. If sources are contradictory, outdated or erroneous, editors must choose the most reliable information or report that the sources disagree.." This one says that yes, there are occasions when editors choose between sources on the basis of which one they think has got it right; as well as other occasion when they simply report that sources say different things.

3 Latest revision as of 02:44, 3 March 2012 "Verifiability, not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; nothing is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it unless it is verifiable." This one says that an editor's view about truth does not matter in a case where no RS agrees with that editor. However, it evades the question of whether or not there are other circumstances in which editors' views about truth do matter.

Personally, I agree up to a point with the thinking expressed in Jehochman's revision – there are circumstances where editors can and should decide which sources to go with on a point of fact. (As in, the sort of issues discussed in the essay WP:Inaccuracy – whether a particularly person's name was "Patterson" or "Pattison".)

On the other hand, I also think it's hugely important that WP articles should not set themselves up as arbiters of truth about subtle and debated questions of historical interpretation: e.g. the influence of religious and esoteric traditions on German National Socialism; the relation between Mithra in Zoroastrianism and the Graeco-Roman cult of Mithras. My experience has been that WP editors do not always understand how subtle these issues can be — there are editors who try to treat such questions as in they were in the same category as "Patterson" versus "Pattison".

What I am also saying is that there are really important questions of principle here, reflected in the various edits of the WP:V policy page.

I know the discussion about this page has gone on a long time. But would it be such a bad thing for the discussion to go on a little bit longer, if that can lead to more clarity on such important questons? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * IMHO you have brought up a very important question (like a one-year effort and creation of a pillar-level guideline would be merited for it), but one which wp:ver should not weigh in on except to say that nothing is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. North8000 (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It's just that wp:ver has contained that troublesome t-word for a long time, though in a negative context: "verifiability not truth". This is the page people are likely to go to, to see whether or not WP thinks editors' views about truth matter... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's just that wp:ver has contained that troublesome t-word for a long time, though in a negative context: "verifiability not truth".
 * That is simply factually incorrect and a self-serving misrepresentation by those who would, ultimately, delete the reference itself. The "context" in which "not truth" is referenced is as follows...
 * One cannot, legitimately anyway, isolate "verifiability, not truth" from its qualifier "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is..." without fundamentally altering and disregarding both the etymology and intent of the construct itself. Not that it will matter at all in this BRD edit fest (oops, excuse me...it's "semi-BRD"...a bit like only half pregnant?) of core WP:POLICY that patently eschews the guidance of WP:CONLIMITED and is now being forum shopped (see mediation proposal) as this assault on the core policy amendment process continues. Thusly, ANY substantive changes made to WP:V in defiance of normal process are not only disruptive but, in fact, illegitimate per WP:CONLIMITED. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One cannot, legitimately anyway, isolate "verifiability, not truth" from its qualifier "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is..." without fundamentally altering and disregarding both the etymology and intent of the construct itself. Not that it will matter at all in this BRD edit fest (oops, excuse me...it's "semi-BRD"...a bit like only half pregnant?) of core WP:POLICY that patently eschews the guidance of WP:CONLIMITED and is now being forum shopped (see mediation proposal) as this assault on the core policy amendment process continues. Thusly, ANY substantive changes made to WP:V in defiance of normal process are not only disruptive but, in fact, illegitimate per WP:CONLIMITED. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * JakeInJoisey, if I hear you right, you are basically saying that the "not truth" phrasing (without the new clarification) created additional meanings unrelated to verifiability, and unrelated to what is in the body of the verifiability policy. And so that clarification that the reason for the "not truth" wording is to reinforce the verifiability requirement is not proper. (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ...if I hear you right, you are basically saying...
 * What I am saying is that existing WP:V core policy language ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.) has been altered by BRD editing contrary to the guidance of WP:CONLIMITED. That much is quite clear. Whether the WP community will countenance this activity or not remains to be seen.
 * ...that the "not truth" phrasing...unrelated to what is in the body of the verifiability policy.
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" remains in the "body of the verifiability policy" and has simply been edit-warred into current non-existence unless, of course, BRD editing is now an acceptable methodology for implementing a substantive change in core policy. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer the question... When making decisions about what goes into WP, does it ever matter what editors think the truth is? - simple answer: "No, never". However, what reliable sources think the truth is does matter.  Our job is to accurately present what the sources say, in our own words.  The problem is that sources can sometimes disagree about what the truth is.  When this occurs, our job is to accurately present the disagreement between the sources, attributing the various views of the truth to those who hold it, and giving each view of the truth its due weight.  So... when holding a discussion about the truth of some fact, we should never argue: "this is true/untrue"... but rather we should argue "According to sources X,Y and Z, this is true/untrue" (and then discuss how much weight to give these sources).  Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would argue that such is not categorically true. For example, that editors agree that something clearly is in error (let's say an obviously implausible number), and decide to just leave it out.  But, either way, I don't think that that is a wp:ver topic.  North8000 (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Here is an improvement worth waiting for. . It uses the English language with some aplomb, and removes the crucially flawed phrase "Not Truth", which ought never to be in a policy page to be perused by those seeking advice and seeking not for confusion to be compounded. Next, those editors who are unable to see that the phrase "Verifiability is an ability???" is contrary to common sense and thus keep restoring such a solecism, need perhaps to take a couple of days to think about this, and say goodbye to the comfort of such an anachronistic non-sequitor. Peace!  NewbyG  ( talk) 15:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I know I probably shouldn't really input, but have you ever tried taking out the word truth completely, as that seems to be what causes the hangup. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablility. If you want to add material you must either have a reliable and appropriate source for it that you can include as a reference, or be sure it could be sourced if anyone asked you to do so. "Everybody knows that/I saw it on the telly/the manufacturer told me..." is not a valid form of verification if someone has challenged the information. Likewise, your personal experience, fervent belief or ownership of the company is not sufficient, without a reliable source, to keep information in the article if others have challenged its correctness. (This is not suggested wording - this is how I have in the past explained it to the sloppy and the truth warrior).

This might allow you to better deal in the next paragraph with issues of where editors believe that information in a source appears to be in error, because you are not in the first paragraph making a contrast between "verifiablility" and "truth". Apologies if this has been discussed before. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "have you ever tried taking out the word truth completely"... yup... and a lot of people objected. That is the hang-up.  The community is fairly evenly divided over that one word.  About a third insist on having it remain in the policy... about a third insist on it being removed from the policy... and about a third are willing to consider taking it out if an agreeable alternative can be found (however, they can't agree on any of the suggested alternatives).  Stalemate. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @Elen: OMG! Yes, discussed before. It's basically at the root of all of the stuff going on here. In the last site-wide RfC, there was a lot of sentiment that "not truth" ought to be retained, and I would say that the three admins who closed the RfC concluded that the consensus was that it should stay. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't remember that, as I recall Blueboar and I went to some effort to get the history right in the September RfC introduction&mdash;there was a previous RfC that deprecated VNT to a footnote and that result was a 50/50 split. Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you guys agree the text first please
While I believe you all are not setting out to edit war, to the outside observer the effect is exactly the same - one of you is taking something out and another is putting it pretty much straight back. Please agree the changes first by discussion here, then introduce the edit. Otherwise I will have to lock the article again. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good approach, and agreed. At least to propose and talk for a day or 2  and see if there is opposition etc. before making even a small change.   North8000 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be really good if you guys could all agree to it. It's confusing to other users when the text keeps changing rapidly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it is OK for us to make the occasional bold edit... as long as we all hold ourselves to a broad based one-revert rule. If someone reverts a bold edit that you like (whether you made the edit or not), or states an objection to it... STOP... go to the talk page and discuss.  The flip side of this is for everyone to resist making such quick reverts.  Before you revert or object, take a little bit of time to seriously think about the bold edit, and consider whether it might actually be an improvement (or at least heading us in the direction of improvement).  Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the multiple tweaking of every edit is helping either. Really, anything that slows down the rate of edits is a good thing in this context.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two minute revert. There can be no progress away from solecism under these circumstances, no progress at all. Bold editing works everywhere, but not here, user:Elen of the Roads is correct, there is too much editing, too much reflex reverting, and far too little thinking. NewbyG  ( talk) 15:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not ever accuse me of reflex reverting and too little thinking. I make edits based on merit or consensus. Your's had no merit, so I reverted it. Leaky  Caldron  15:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have locked the page in whatever version it was at as at the timestamp. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest problems we seem to be encountering here is that some people "revert on sight" simply because it wasn't discussed first, without any pause for thought whatsoever (apparently) as to whether or not there is anything actually wrong with that edit. This is one of the things that really has to stop; an edit should not be reverted "just because", and when there is nothing wrong with it.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted "on site" because it was crap. I did not do it without pause, I did it after I had long enough to evaluate it - approximately 10 seconds. It was a semi-incoherent ramble. I was dishonest in my edit summary - perhaps to save the feelings of the editor. That was a mistake on my part for which I apologise. I should have just called in a crap change. Leaky  Caldron  19:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverts to the project page in the last 50 edits

 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * 7)
 * 8)
 * 9)
 * 10)

These are not all the reverts,but just those which restore redundant wording in an effort to satisfy interests which are not proper, from the viewpoint of oue Editing policy. NewbyG ( talk) 15:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to belabor it, but some of the entries on your list are edits that were made constructively after discussion and agreement in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Page protected

 * Page protected, in the "wrong version", all good. NewbyG  ( talk) 15:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit because it added a bunch of unnecessary words that added nothing to the sum total of understanding of that particular sentence over its preceding, shorter and clearer version. In other words you made a poor change and I reverted it.  Leaky  Caldron  16:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It may not have added to the sum total of your understanding, but it had the virtue of not being wrong. Verifiability is the property of that which is capable of being verified, not the ability of the verifier. Nowadays, most people do not care about grammar, punctuation, and the proper meaning of words, but I hope that at least some of you care enough to attempt to get it right. Vesal (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think everyone can agree that the word "verifiability" literally means "the ability to verify". The problem lies in confusion and disagreement over what we are verifying, and who is performing the verification.  Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Well there's one source of confusion. The word "verifiability" does not literally means "the ability to verify". I would think that more would be in agreement with "verifiability is the state or condition of being able to be verified"- that is, it is the material used which is verifiable, not the editors who are verifiable, or have the ability to be verified! . Have no idea what words would be used to convey " the ability to verify". Perhaps editors and readers are provided with the opportunity to verify that the material is verifiable material? Bit long and twisted. though. Cheers NewbyG  ( talk) 17:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is very difficult to define verifiability in a way that is not twisted. The best I can come up with is this: "Verifiability is a property of such material in Wikipedia articles which can be directly supported by reliable sources." Using a proper definition would end up being even more cumbersome. Maybe starting by saying verifiability is a core policy/concept isn't such a bad idea after all. Vesal (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, starting by saying verifiability is a core policy/concept seemed a smooth way of beginning the lead section, and that version was going somewhere, before the reverting mulched it.  NewbyG  ( talk) 18:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to discussion
So... now that the page is protected... perhaps we can take a bit of time to discuss the various edits that were made. To make progress, it will be helpful to focus on discuss what you liked in other people's edits, rather than what you disliked. Let's see if we can find common ground as to general direction, rather than focusing on specific wording. Blueboar (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys didn't come to a common understanding of what VnT is supposed to mean did you? If not I'll stay away and let you stew till you come to your senses (:  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  18:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I hate to say this, but ...
 * What we currently have actually doesn't look too bad! <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, no, the page is currently protected in the "wrong version". To say that "Verifiability is the ability .. to verify" is syntactically incompetent, thus misleading, therefore inappropriate for a policy or guideline. NewbyG  ( talk) 18:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO it is correct with the respect to the wikipedia definition of verifiability. Also syntactically correct if one recognizes that it is defining wp:verifiability not the word verifiability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO the good compromise version that can settle this is what is currently in there. It contains the changes that had a mini-consensus here, plus some very minor tweaks, and the larger changes that were bold (vs. semi-bold) have been reverted. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No,we are not being asked to provide a dictionary definition of the word "verifiability".We áre being asked not to use a common word in the English language in a non-sensical way. That is the way of the Red Queen. That is still syntactically incoherent. If we define Wikipedia/Verifiability as "Verifiability-not Truth" that gets us nowhere but a logical short circuit and conumdrum = bad. NewbyG  ( talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edit
Any suggestion as to some editorial capability to discern "absolute truth" would, of necessity, introduce patently OR deliberations as to "truth" into this time-proven process. The prospect of such a radical change should give any forward thinking editor nightmares. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. Nicely done.  Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical  19:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Correction. Strike "WP:V" as it presumes the question...


 * JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No objection to that edit from me.— S Marshall T/C 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with the first bit... The original intent of VNT was to say that unverifiable material should not be added...  even if it IS true.
 * The example given at the time that VNT was first coined was this: An editor holds a conversation with Steven Hawking in which Hawking says "I think such-and-such theory is rubbish". The editor knows that Hawking said this (the editor was present when Hawking said it, after all).  The fact that Hawking said it isn't a matter of "perceived" truth... Hawking actually did say it.
 * However, even though this fact is true, we still can not include this fact in Wikipedia. The reason why it can not be included is because it is unverifiable.  The reader can not verify that Hawking said "I think such-and-such theory is rubbish".
 * The scenario in the example has nothing to do with the "perception" of truth... instead it has everything to do with the unverifiability of the actual truth. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Other editors have no way of knowing if it is the actual truth or not in this case. Hence it is what the particular editor percieves to be true, based on his real life experience in this example. Even in the case you talk about with Stephen Hawking the person involved may have misheard, hence percieved truth yet again. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps JakeInJoisey's proposed edit could be improved by saying "Neither perceived truth nor personal experience are elements for consideration"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is one of many many good proposals. But my eye is on the ball of a near term resolution of the hot issues. And save the other proposed improvements (that are no on hot issues) for a separate process. I think that what's in there right now is capable of doing that. This new idea is like starting with a clean sheet of paper and building a new first paragraph. Probably a superior route (that would take months) but certainly not a quick solution on the hot issues. and my eye / tunnel vision isn't on that ball today. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blueboar... and notice that his example could be about an untruth to, so we need to have it as both truth and falsehood.

Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 20:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that a lot of the suggested changes being discussed in this thread go in the wrong direction, in that they make the language more stiff and convoluted. But I very much like Jake's use of the phrase "perceived truth". That seems to me to get right to the heart of the matter! After all, the whole brouhaha over this page started from the concern that we were implying that Wikipedia has a problem with truth. And, of course, we don't. The problem is with perceived truth, when an editor is cock-sure something is true no matter what the preponderance of reliable sources say.


 * In my opinion, there are a couple of things wrong with The Wrong VersionTM now on the page. First, it's very clear (to me, at least) that the community said in the last RfC that we should keep "verifiability, not truth" but explain it better. So changing it to "and not truth" ought to be undone. And Jake's formulation of "perceived truth" is much more to the point than is "truth, of itself...". So, I recommend changing that sentence to this:


 * And leave the other sentences in the first paragraph as they now are. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sentence reads like "Verifiability, not truth" is a fundamental requirement, so to remove the "and" requires a re-write of the sentence. Also, as a general rule, parenthetical material in technical writing is incorrect writing.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the parentheses, at least in this case. I'd be happy to change them to commas instead. But I don't think anyone would be confused by the absence of "and". It's just saying that verifiability is a fundamental requirement and truth isn't. Keep in mind that the page long said that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the "perceived truth" idea. Commas rather than parentheses, yes.  My ideal policy page, whichever policy it is, would have the plainest, simplest, easiest-to-understand wording that was humanly possible.  If something can be said clearly in two syllables rather than five, and in language which is within the grasp of both pre-University and ESL editors, it's going to be understood by far more people, with far less explanation or expansion. Something to aim for.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 22:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

@JakeInJoisey, An editor a while back mentioned using logic analysis to break down the compound sentence, where you get two parts:

Part of the force of illogic working here is that a threshold is an analog term which has states both above and below the threshold, which leads to meanings such as, "the threshold for exclusion from Wikipedia is truth". I've not seen that our community can agree to avoid ambiguity, but I agree with Pesky. Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Be— <span style="background:black;color:white;padding:0px 5px 6px 0px;cursor:pointer;cursor:hand;letter-spacing:2px;">—Critical 23:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would object to anything that invents things that are not in the body of the policy. Which basically is that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion. "Not truth" if it stays, is there only to support that, not to create other concepts which are controversial and not a part of this policy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Becritical's wording is simple and clear... but... Are there not other considerations, such as relevance and weight, that influence decisions about what goes in? Is this what you are objecting about, North? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the main issue. Actually two issues in one...one is that it starts wp:ver wading into areas that have nothing to do with verifiability. And second is wording that is problematic.  North8000 (talk) 12:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there are several very good points in JakeInJoisey 's proposed wording: Though it's true that JakeInJoisey 's wording is convoluted – I don't think the word "predicated" helps! How about this… Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "perceived truth" is a good expression to include, though we probably don't need to say it twice.
 * And the point made in the final sentence – that verifiability depends only on whether there is a source – is an important thing to say in the page about verification.


 * If we have to keep the VnT phrase, then Kalidasa's suggestion here is very good. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to say something that has been said many times in different ways, one of the critical problems with VnT is the "n". The exact logical operation is unclear: how is verifiability being opposed to truth? A more orthodox way of saying what I think is intended is perhaps "as opposed to". The wordings above encapsulate something like this in the second sentence - trying to explain what the not means by saying that perceived truth of editors can not replace verifiability as the critical concept for this policy. But the explanations are all trying to work around the strange first sentence, adding layers of complexity to what is defended as being "punchy".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Leaky Caldron  13:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I would support this version but would suggest that saying "No matter how convinced you might be that some content is true" might reduce some of the inevitable special pleading that new editors in particular frequently make when trying so insert their beliefs into articles. Leaky  Caldron  14:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the path forward is to put material like that into a content guideline, or possibly a behavioral guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting a new guideline to deal with the issue of truth? something that we could point to in this policy? Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no vision for a guideline about the issue of truth, it sounds impractical. As you know, I've created an essay purposed to be a guideline called WP:Inaccuracy.  What I had in mind was to use the existing WP:V policy text and create something like WP:Verifiability, and not truth, and provide a platform to talk about things that WP:V is not.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If they cannot read it quickly in the intro. there is a strong likelihood that some will not bother to read a guideline. New editors in particular can be averse to reading guides. Leaky  Caldron  18:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keeping in mind that there are many community members out there who are not tuned in to this discussion, but will be at the time of an RfC, it's worth remembering the feedback from the previous RfCs. In that regard, it's a big mistake, and waste of time, to consider versions that do not include, verbatim, "verifiability, not truth". The goal here should be to explain the phrase clearly, not to replace it with something else. Yes, I know I'm going to be answered with comments that that's not what the RfCs said at all, but those comments will be plain wrong.
 * I like what Kalidasa 777 suggested about "neither perceived truth nor personal experience". That works nicely, I think. But I wouldn't use that last sentence, about "No matter how convinced..." The version of that sentence now on the page is much more direct and accessible. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The words "verifiability, not truth" have been there for a while, and are clearly important to a lot of people; perhaps including myself! On the other hand, it would be nice to have the subject of the sentence "verifiability" immediately before the verb "is", without qualifications and commas. Regarding the last sentence, I agree that my earlier wording isn't direct enough; but it does get in the point about perceived untruth, and I'm clearly not the only editor to see that as important. So how is this one?


 * Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Twitter
I am a member of WP:NFL, and I am a frequent updater of NFL player articles when players are signed, released, traded, etc. Twitter allows many sports writers and reporters to get news out fast and sometimes report minor details that don't usually get recorded in the news articles they write. In the case of Hines Ward, news broke of his impending release from the Pittsburgh Steelers on Twitter. News articles were written about his impending release, but none have been written of his official release (yet). Aaron Wilson, who is a writer for the National Football Post and a former writer for profootballtalk.com (both considered reliable sources), tweeted today that Ward's release was official as of yesterday (link). I changed Ward's article to reflect his release, but my updates have been challenged as there are no "reliable" sources written about his official release.

What I'm proposing, at least for NFL articles, is that WP:V is changed to allow Twitter to be a reliable source, assuming the tweet comes from an account of a writer with credentials. At the minimum, this will allow articles changes in the interim period between when news is broken on Twitter and when reliable sources are written about said news.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See: WP:NOTNEWS... There is no need for Wikipedia to report breaking news as soon as it breaks. Indeed, because we are an encyclopedia (and not a news source), we really should take a slower approach to editing... we should wait until we know more of the details before we update an article to reflect the latest news. Blueboar (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If Hines Ward was truly released yesterday and our article does not reflect that, we are promoting misinformation.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, WP:NOTNEWS does not say anything that applies to your view, it actually says the opposite.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  01:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we are not "promoting misinformation" if we wait for a better source than Twitter... it simply means the information we give may not reflect the latest news. There is a difference.  Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Blueboar that Wikipedia does not aim to be, and really can not aim to be a collection of the latest news on every subject. There are sometimes sourcing arguments where there is a grey area though. For example I have seen it argued that academic papers should not be cited until widely cited, even if they are a few years old, written by well known researchers and in a specialist field that does not get cited much. In such cases this style of argument can be pushed so far that it comes into conflict with WP:NEUTRAL. I do not have much experience with writing about current affairs on Wikipedia but it must come into such problems fairly often?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS specifically says "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and the development of stand-alone articles on significant current events." I don't know how you two have come to interpret that as "Wikipedia should not be up-to-date"...  Eagles   24/7  (C)  17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be fine in this case - Twitter is, essentially, a blog, and WP:SPS says that this material may be acceptable " 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". However, it's a bit of a gray area on BLPs, see WP:BLPSOURCES. Kelly  hi! 21:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kelly on the general point: you could use a journalist's tweets as non-fact-checked, self-published, primary sources (at least temporarily, until a decent source appears).  However, there are two important caveats:
 * I don't support them for "minor details that don't usually get recorded in the news articles". If the information is not important enough to get published properly, then it's obviously not important enough for Wikipedia to mention.
 * You can't use them for information about living people per WP:ABOUTSELF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Where we're at and proposed roadmap
The version in place appears to / may be an accepted compromise version only with respect to the hot issues of the last 15 months'. I think that 100% of the people would say that some change or improvement is needed, but I propose treating that as a different topic. The compromise is vulnerable to getting accidentally wiped out. For example, a person approaching it from only a grammar optimization perspective accidentally wiped out the core of it due to redundant "truth" in a sentence. I think that semi-BRD has been a good way to make progress on the hot issues, but we have seen that with that (maybe) behind us, we have to look at it's downsides. One is that it inevitably has brought in plain BRD (i.e. very bold "B" and related instability as well) which folks will not accept for the most prominent paragraph in Wikipedia. Second, is that editing it in place is an unworkable process for dealing with the immense range of possibilities that people are proposing for further improvement. May I suggest/propose the following:


 * 1) Leave the lock in place for 1-2 weeks, and everybody review the first paragraph only with respect to whether it is an acceptable compromise only with respect to the hot issues of the last 15 months.
 * 2) Folks also review whether or not this proposed roadmap is acceptable
 * 3) If the answer to #1 is "yes", agree that there is to be no more bold editing of the first paragraph for at least a few months. Even the smallest of changes (e.g. punctuation) would need to get floated for 2 days in talk, medium scale ones would need at least a mini-consensus over several days in talk etc.
 * 4) If the above occurs and it sits stable for another couple weeks after unlocking, take off the "under discussion" tag.
 * 5) Then the hot issues will have been resolved. Proceed on to other ideas for improvement, handled per the above.

What do y'all think?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What do y'all think?
 * I think this entire BRD escapade has been in direct contravention to the provisions of WP:CONLIMITED and its mandate for strong, WP community-wide consensus for substantive amendments to core WP policy. Any substantive edits subsequent to the prior RfC determination and closure are, therefore, illegitimate, constitute disruptive editing of Wikipedia core policy and seriously damage the integrity of this entire project. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jake, can you suggest an alternative road map for ending the endless debate? For example, do you favor continuing Mr. Stradivarius attempt at Mediation? Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jake, can you suggest an alternative road map...
 * "Alternative road map'? The "alternative road map" is the same that has always existed...the presentation of suggested amendments and solicitation of broad-based WP community support for any substantive change to WP core policy. It is this insufferable BRD editing that is the "alternative road map".
 * ...do you favor continuing Mr. Stradivarius attempt at Mediation?
 * To "mediate" exactly what? Some ad hoc dispensation from consensus core policy process to accommodate what I perceive to be editorial petulance? That's forum shopping and nothing I'm inclined to enable via personal participation. A process for the legitimate amendment of core policy is readily available via system wide RfC. Use it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jake, the whole point of Stradivarius' plan is to do an RfC. For RfC to happen, you need proposals for people to comment about. The idea of the mediation to make a list of options for comment in the RfC. Please read Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I also support Mr. Stradivarius attempt.  When I signed on I said I agree, support and would participate, but still hope for a faster solution. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jake, the whole point of Stradivarius' plan is to do an RfC.
 * While "mediation" might be a requirement for those whose, IMHO, nuanced hair-splitting and, perhaps, personal agendas has incessantly fed this recent spate of BRD editing, my objection has been and continues to be twofold...the first of which is the willful abrogation of the WP consensus process now evidenced in the edit-warred and force-fed amended WP:V language. Secondly, I, and many other editors who were too fed up with this adulterated process to continue participation either here OR in "mediation", are of the opinion that this is a "solution" looking for a highly overstated "problem" which proponents for change generally have some difficulty effectively demonstrating. In fact, I share the opinion that this is, in effect, an attempt to elevate WP:OR at the expense of a significantly weakened WP:V much to the eventual detriment of this project.  Perhaps the restoration of pre-existing and demonstrably stable WP:V language might effect the return of some of those voices, but there is nothing, at least for me, in "mediation" save for "concession"...a concession to compromise language I, and others of my persuasion, have already made here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jake, every time that you write you are insulting the people who are trying to move this forward, and bashing any process that isn't total gridlock. Further, the fact that you are accusing people of "an attempt to elevate WP:OR" indicates to me that you  have no idea what has been going on here.  Absolutely keeping the verifiability requirement and preventing OR is one thing that EVERYBODY here has agreed on all along. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Jake, every time that you write you are insulting the people who are trying to move this forward,...
 * And the methodology employed by "forward movers" is an "insult" to the WP consensus process for amending core policy.
 * Absolutely keeping the verifiability requirement and preventing OR is one thing that EVERYBODY here has agreed on all along.
 * Then I must have been reading another TLDR where words and phrases such as "truth", "verifiability, not truth" and "not truth" appear to be both a frequent topic of discussion and editorial agita. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you just didn't read them closely and then derived a mistaken impression from them.  This is important because strongly excluding OR is an area where everybody AGREES with you, so "resolving" that is just a matter of clarifying that. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then, as you're apparently ambivalent as to the propriety of BRD editing having already changed what was once-stable WP:V language into this current rendition of WP:V du jour, I'll await the product(s) of the "forward mover" mediation (I'm for status quo...or was anyway) to see just how strongly this purported sentiment for OR exclusion is represented. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * On your fist sentence, that's a different topic. On your last sentence, I'm confident that you would be pleasantly surprised, as all of the active participants have agreed on that all along. North8000 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1)   NewbyG  ( talk) 16:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What's BRD?--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD Leaky  Caldron  16:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant what do folks think about the above proposed roadmap. (?) North8000 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree that BRD is not the way forward. Regarding your suggestion that the version in place is "an accepted compromise version" -- accepted by who? Was the page locked because it was stable, or because it was unstable? I agree with Stradivarius and with Jake that an RfC is the way to go, for a verifiable consensus about verifiability. I think we should consider not only taking a break from BRD, but also pausing discussion on this talk page, to give the mediation a chance to work. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was locked in because it was unstable with too many friendly changes rather than a dispute.  What I meant is that seemed OK with the active folks regarding (ONLY) the hot issues. I know that there lots of different thoughts and ideas with respect to the wording. And, of course, each of these is a thought that the current wording should be changed.  To me that looks like a 1 year project that has nothing to do with the hot dispute.  I was looking for a shortcut to see if the hot dispute is settled, see if the wording that settled it is stable, then take the tag off, then move on to those other zillions of ideas for improvement.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... North, given that we have had no less than nine different proposals for wording and re-wording the "hot issue" VNT sentence since the page was locked ... I'd say there is still a fair amount of dispute on that particular issue.  Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure which version North means in the opening post of the thread, but I would agree with what Blueboar just said about what we are working with now still being a work in progress. (What's on the page now is The Wrong Version.) As I see it, the roadmap should include keeping the full protection until we really have a version in talk that really has consensus, and continued talk, with various proposals floated, in the mean time. And I strongly support participation in the mediation. Anyone who declines to participate there really has no business naysaying here in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that I mostly agree with both of you. For clarification of MY point, I would say the following.  The hottest issue over the last 15 months has been the presence/absence /treatment of  "not truth".  If I posit the statement that what is in there right now is an agreeable compromise regarding (ONLY) THAT ISSUE, who disagrees with that statement? Please read my byzantine question :-) carefully before answering. North8000 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends what you mean by "presence/absence/treatment". Looking at the thread above, Proposed edit, everyone there seems to agree that the policy does need to distinguish between the terms "verifiability" and "truth". No-one, currently, seems to be arguing that the policy should stop mentioning the word "truth", or that it should talk about "accuracy" instead... That does not mean that the current (locked) wording has general support, or is preferred to earlier versions. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you. But my post was on a different, narrower topic. North8000 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A problem that I have had in the last few months is what is needed to demonstrate "not truth", particularly when an otherwise reputable source publishes something that was based on a misleading press release. Am I allowed to use WP:OR to demonstrate that the source is not reliable? Martinvl (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I allowed to use WP:OR to demonstrate that the source is not reliable?
 * Assuming you have no WP:V, WP:RS sourcing with which to offer rebuttal content, not within the article itself. If, in your opinion, the third-party source is "not reliable" in citing the press release, then WP:RSN should be your first port of call. Also, if there is only a single RS citing the "press release", WP:UNDUE might also be a consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Original research should definitely not be presented in an article, especially to "demonstrate" that a cited source is "wrong". OR is allowed to be discussed on talk pages... so you may discuss Original research on a talk page to argue that a particular source should not be considered reliable in a specific instance.  However, without sources to support your arguments, other editors may not find your arguments very convincing.  Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2012
Just a quick thing, this page has the wrong protection template. Could someone change that?

Millermk90 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Skier Dude  ( talk ) 01:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

When we talk about "Verifiability"... what are we verifying?
I think it would be helpful to review some history... I think most of you know that this policy grew out of WP:NOR (way back in 2003). This is important to understand, because it explains the origin of some of the language here... and the original intent behind that language. At the time that this policy was created "Verifiability" did not refer to the ability to check or prove the accuracy (or truth) of the material... it simply referred to the ability to verify that the material is not Original research.

Indeed, at one point early on, the second sentence (right after VNT) made this original meaning of "Verifiability" clear... stating variations on: "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research. Somewhere along the line we lost the "because...", and with it the context of the original language.

Now, I am not necessarily calling for a return of this language (nor any other specific action)... I am merely noting that the term "Verifiability" was originally used with a specific context in mind - the context of NOR - and noting that certain bits of language that have existed in the policy since that time (such as VNT) made a lot more sense when taken in that specific context.

It is something to think about as we move forward. Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Just curious on a couple of points.  Currently "OR" sort of has two connotations, one is the RW connotations (new theories, new research, new ideas etc.)  and then the there is the structural meaning which is basically that "OR" is a synonym for anything that does not meet the verifiability requirement.  Did "OR" have both meanings back then?  Second, wp:ver has obviously taken on a life of its own.    It's meaning is that everything must be verifiable in accordance with the details of the policy.   But the theme of it and the talk around it seems to be:  "The only workable way to have an Encyclopedia written by anonymous and often non-expert people is to strictly require wp:verifiability as a condition for inclusion. .   Was that a part of the original theme? Thanks North8000 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've always thought the verifiability concept is a bit misleading, for the reasons you imply. i.e., it is (theoretically) possible to verify (or substantiate the truth of) a Wikipedia statement against reality (which we call 'truth'), but it is also possible to verify (or substantiate the truth of) a Wikipedia statement against a published statement (which we call 'verification'). I think this is where some of the confusion comes from. NTox · talk 20:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That "because" was incomplete, I have to assume because the basic reason for citations was taken for granted. We want to verify that the ideas come from the source rather than from the editor, but more fundamentally we need to know that there actually is a source, and that it actually is what it is represented to be, and that it actually says what it is claimed to say. I have had a case where the supposed source did not exist, and others where looking up the citation showed that it didn't support the text of the article (sometimes through misinterpretation, in some cases because the cited text was utterly irrelevant). THe objection to synthesis is on top of these more basic requirements. Mangoe (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For those interested, this essay provides some more historical context. Speaking broadly: the way I see it, the encyclopedia is designed to summarize reality. But every human being has his own summary of reality. So which summary of reality do we publish? Long ago, the community decided it would be the one that trusted sources believe. We ensure that this happens with the verifiability policy. We verify or confirm that trusted sources actually believe what they believe about reality by pointing to tangible, published information that they have published. NTox · talk 00:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2012
At the end of the first paragraph of the lead, please change "do not add it unless it is verifiable" to "do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable", otherwise it's unclear what "add it" means. LK (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC) ✅ This seems non-controversial and unrelated to the 'dispute' so I've done it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 *  Support  NewbyG  ( talk) 06:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support that particular change, and that it is non-controversial, but the whole first paragraph is under discussion and under mediation, we should not be editing it based on the opinion of a few. North8000 (talk)
 * If quickly went through the things being changed prior to protection and I didn't see that particular sentence as an issue however if another admin feels it should have been left, I'm fine with my edit being undone. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was more worried about getting onto a slippery slope rather than this particular edit. North8000 (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sourcing tennis draws
I'm not sure where to bring this up but I figured if not here then someone qualified could point the way. The question is about published tennis tournament draws. They are popular and informative on wikipedia and at tennis project we feel vital. They are easily sourced but here's the rub... they are easily sourced because the tournament publishes them or they are sourced from publishings by the ITF or WTA/ATP... governing bodies of all these tournaments. No one else publishes these things... even for the Grand Slam tournaments. We have an editor who has tagged these with primary sources which looks pretty ugly and is likely never to be removed. This editor is technically correct....The tournament publishing a draw sheet is a primary source, and the ITF or WTA is very closely affiliated so is not a secondary source but puts it into a primary source also. What can be done here? Can there be an exemption if it's a draw sheet, not prose? It seems incredible we can't use these sources for the draws of their own events as it's not really like an autobiography. Any help and thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course exceptions are there. Read Verifiability. Wifione  Message 11:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of editors mistakenly think Primary sources are not allowed... this is not correct. The relevant policy is WP:No original research (shortcut: WP:PRIMARY).  Please note that the policy expressly allows for the use of primary sources, as long as we do so with caution.  Don't go beyond what the sources say... You can use them for blunt descriptive statements that are directly supported by the source.   Don't interpret what the primary sources say.  Don't analyze them, or form a conclusion based upon them.  What this means is that you may use the published results of a tennis tournament to state what the results of the tournament were. Indeed, I would take it a step further... not only may we use them, but we should use them.  Such published results are the "official" record of the tournament; as such they are the most reliable source for the information in question.  That said, while the results of a specific tournament can be supported by primary sources, the article as a whole should not be based exclusively on such... you do need a few secondary sources (such as newspaper reports), if only to demonstrate that the player or tournament that is the topic of the article is WP:Notable.  Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You can take the primary tags off the source for the draw (as you could for sources for a league table, seeding results or anything like that) because the most reliable source is going to be the organizer, and there is no issue in using them as a source. However, you do need to show that the draw/tournament/league or whatever is notable, and for that you need secondary sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. It had been a cordial issue but expertise usually helps smooth things out around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. So the tour websites are good as sources for the draws and results, if used with caution. If I may expand this question to another kind of tennis articles we have, also based on this same information found on ATP or WTA site. You can find them in this category Category:Tennis career statistics. A typical example is Serena Williams career statistics. Here the results from draws get synthesized into various tables, blended to make head-to-head records against other players and % of matches won. Is this accceptable? The sources are probably correct, but they are not found in this format on the ATP or WTA. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, while the previous issue was partly a policy question, yours refers to a particular (type of) source. My suggestion will be to take it to RSN, giving a note of these discussions here. More experienced eyes out there. Kind regards. Wifione  Message 05:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, can do that. But I still think it is a question about verifiability (not RS). These tables "can" be verified on the given source at ATP site, but only with a lot of work. In other words it is not directly verifiable. We are not going to find direct sources for these tables, so I doubt a question at RSN will solve it. Maybe it is even an OR problem rather than a RSN question. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the best place to discuss this is WP:NORN (the No original research Noticeboard). The question to ask there is whether compiling such tables is allowed per the "Routine calculations exemption" of NOR, or not.   Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Done. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Five year rule
While doing prod patrol, I came across a proposed deletion on the grounds that the article was "Unreferenced for over five years, fails WP:V". My understanding, per WP:MINREF, is that references are only required for material which is a direct quotation or is likely to be challenged. Please could you clarify whether there is such a five year rule in WP:V. Warden (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well; a prod means that the material included in the article is being challenged. The term 'five years' is perhaps only a general common sense statement to convey the duration of time the material may have remained without a citation. Wifione  Message 11:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, no - if the entire article is unreferenced then that is a clearly correct deletion reason per WP:V, whether it's been unreferenced for five years or five minutes. Without that, the article could have been a hoax.  However, this one clearly isn't, as a quick Google search would have revealed.  It took me two minutes to reference, and I'm surprised you didn't take the time to do it yourself. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, there's no such rule. WP:BURDEN does not have a deadline, and so long as none of the material is one of the four types, then an unreferenced article can be 100% compliant with this policy.
 * Let me remind you of the most basic fact here: the policy is that the material must be verifi able, not verifi ed .  As the lead says, "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources".  So long as those RSes have been WP:Published, then it's possible to attribute the information to them.  There is no requirement that those RSes be WP:CITEd, only that they have been published.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, since we are talking about existence of an article (not the material within it) the most relevant guideline is wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 11:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC on More footnotes
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:More footnotes. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC) — SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Comma splice
The first sentence at WP:SPS says:

This is a comma splice. Could we please add the word and in the middle?

Also, while we're at it, it would be appropriate to link to self-publishing in that section. Someone at WT:EL was just explaining to me that a self-published source is one in which the author is talking about himself, i.e., another way of spelling autobiography. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On self-published sources... Not quite. While many autobiographies are self-published, not all self-published sources are autobiographical.  I think the point being made was that we limit our use of self-published sources (only using them to support statements that the author makes about himself).  Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I completely agree with you about the definition of self-publication, but that was actually the strange definition I was just given yesterday, and no, it wasn't in the context of how we use such sources, because it was at WT:External links, and external links never support article content, by definition. The editor followed up today to affirm that she believed it impossible for any blog about, say, mathematics to be self-published on the grounds that the author is writing and publishing about math, not about himself.  (That was a new error in my experience, BTW; usually the erroneous claim is that self-publishing is what happens if you are too small an entity to employ dozens of lawyers.)
 * The reason I think we need the link is because in practice, it's impossible for people to "limit our use of self-published sources" if they don't know what a self-published source actually is. And as that discussion proves, we do have some editors who truly don't know what the term means.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added 'and'. I'll leave the self-publishing issue for now, but feel free to re-request once you've cleared that up. Tra (Talk) 15:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Related to this, I've finally started Identifying and using self-published sources, which you are all welcome to expand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 March 2012
The "see also" hat note of Non-English sources should link to No original research to highlight the fact that, by policy, translations are not considered original research. I think this request is not controversial (the target OR#Translations... already links back here), so I'm making the edit request directly. Diego (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Diego (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tra (Talk) 23:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thx. Diego (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"All information"
Could we swap the second sentence "All information in Wikipedia..." to "All contested or potentially controversial information" (or something like that) in compliance with the second paragraph and WP:When to cite? Brand meister talk  22:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As with the discussion thread immediately above, this is one of the things being looked at in the current mediation process. However, in my opinion, the second sentence is really referring to all information, not only that which is contested. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This is correct as it stands. NB that we make a distinction between what is verifi able and what is WP:CITEd.  All material must be verifiable (possible for someone to verify, assuming he's willing to go to sufficient amount of work to find the sources himself).  Only contested material must be cited (provided with the name of a source that supports the material, so that it's easier [but not necessarily easy] for other people to verify the material).
 * This is, BTW, addressed in the FAQ, currently third question from the bottom (and will probably be fourth from the bottom before long). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree I think its grammatically correct and fits perfectly, see no reason for a change. Maxasher (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon
Please "verify" quote and material under the sub-title: "Christianity as a Contributor to the Fall and to Stability". I have a three volume set of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbon; The Heritage Press, NY; The special contents of the edition are copyright, 1946, by THE GEORGE MACY COMPANIES,INC., and Chapter XXXIX (chap. 39) and your quoted material is not here as cited. In Chapter 39, the fall of the Roman Empire in the West has already occured and this chapter is about the invasion and conquest of Italy and the Gothic king, THEODORIC the Ostrogoth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandrameyer (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is for discussing the verifiability policy, not for checking individual sources. You could raise your question, instead, at the talk page of the article where the material occurs, or, if you need further help, at WP:RSN. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Kindle books don't have page numbers; how do we cite them?
I'm not sure where I should ask this, but it's directly related to WP:V so I'll ask here. I just discovered that apparently Kindle eBooks don't contain page numbers. Instead, it gives a location. In my particular case, the cite I wanted to add was at location 1970 out of 6998. I brought this up at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed#He_joined_the_Muslim_Brotherhood_at_age_sixteen. article talk page] and also at the Computing Reference desk. So, I guess I have two questions: A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Is there currently a citation template that allows us to cite a Kindle book?
 * 2) If not, how do we go about creating a new citation template to handle this situations?


 * Kindle books do actually normally (but not always) have page numbers. I'm not sure if there's a quicker way, but if you do a text search for a distinctive phrase in the part you want to cite, you will normally get a page number with the result. That's using a Kindle Keyboard. FormerIP (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just picked up my Kindle and noticed that you can get the page number just by clicking "menu". FormerIP (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we know if the page numbers on the Kindle version are the same as they are in paper? If so, just cite it as if it were paper. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope someone will investigate the potential variations in Kindle citations. Do they vary depending on any possible device settings? Do they vary from one type of Kindle to another? Whatever factors cause a change in pagination will have to be included in the citation. But there is no reason not to cite a Kindle page number if it does not match the page in a paper edition, just as there is no reason not to cite a page number in a paperback edition just because it does not patch the page in a hardcover edition. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have a Kindle device. I have the Kindle app installed on my iPad.  I don't see a way to view a page number.  I also tried the Kindle app for Windows and the Kindle web reader.  None of them seem to have a way to see a page number.
 * The location was consistent across the iPad, Windows and web reader, so I don't think that this is an issue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is certainly no WP:V issue with citing a kindle version... It is just a question of how to format it. I would suggest raising the issue at WP:CITE... it is more in the scope of that guideline than a policy issue for this page.
 * (ec) I'm assuming the page numbers match up to the paper editions. But there is also a location number, which I think goes by screens in a typical Kindle display. If you can't get page numbers, maybe just do an oldschool non-templated citation. FormerIP (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Glancing at some information from the Amazon site, it seems that the PC version lets you display the page number, but the i-whatever blurb does not brag about that capability. It seems to all be the same thing that you buy and view on several different devices, according to your whim of the moment. So I suppose I would cite it with Kindle and the page number. If you discover page numbers are not consistent (when present) across all devices, I would not give a page number and instead give a quote that can be searched for. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Windows app doesn't show page number for me. Maybe it's the particular book I'm reading?  The Amazon web site seems to leave some wiggle room with the statement that "This feature is available with thousands of books in the Kindle Store" as if it's not available for all books.  According to this page, not all Kindle devices support page numbers.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Windows app doesn't show page number for me. Maybe it's the particular book I'm reading?  The Amazon web site seems to leave some wiggle room with the statement that "This feature is available with thousands of books in the Kindle Store" as if it's not available for all books.  According to this page, not all Kindle devices support page numbers.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer's already in CITE. See WP:EBOOK.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Need uninvolved editors to examine my analysis of a source
At Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, there's an issue over the proper use of a source. According to my own analysis, the use of this source fails criteria #2 of WP:SPS but no one else is agreeing with me. Can some uninvolved editors examine this source and let me know what they think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Accessibility
Compare this sentence:

"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources"

with this one:

"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."

In the first one, and certainty in the linked essay - Reliable sources/Cost, the implication is that accessibility is not regarded as a high priority; while in the second one it is clear that accessibility is a high priority. As we are not writing doctorates or other scholarly papers, but general interest articles for a general encyclopaedia for the general public, who are usually looking for quick and reliable information rather than an in depth scholarly analysis or a degree course in the subject matter, then accessible sources should be the priority. We should prioritise a decent and recent text which has been scanned on Google Books, over a 100 year old text only found in an out of print bookstore in Greenwich Village or in the vaults of the British Library. We should be directing readers to decent accessible sources, not making matters difficult because we have no clear policy on it.

When reading a Wikipedia article I tend to check the sources, and if the sources are print only (even if easy to obtain), then I am frustrated. If I need to go to my library to get reliable information, then the ease and much of the value of using Wikipedia is lost (and if I have to go to my library, then I will first get whatever texts my library has - regardless of what texts have been used in building the Wikipedia article). I have done more than a handful of Good Article reviews where on checking sources I find the information in the source does not quite match what is said in the article, and even highly respected and experienced editors have made mistakes in copying over/summarizing information. I have, over time, learned not to completely accept sources in good faith - indeed the actual point of sources is that they are there for me to check, and additionally for me to learn more from. The less accessible the source, the less verifiable and reliable the article becomes, and the less I am able to learn. I would regard accessibility to be a high priority, and if the same information is contained in a closed source and an accessible source, then - at the least - the accessible source should also be included, and, if appropriate, preferred.

A suggested alternative wording:

Does my wording go too far in the direction of accessibility? Could it be better balanced? Thoughts?  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  19:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a tension between making it easy to check articles and making it easy to write them. I think this proposed change goes too far in the wrong direction: we still need to write material.  For example, we should clearly have something on Flora of France, but when I finally get around to writing it, I don't want to take any grief for using the foreign-language print sources that are on my bookshelf.  I do not wish to trawl around the snippet view in google books looking for a way to satisfy suspicious and hostile editors of my integrity.  Therefore, I am opposed to this change.— S Marshall  T/C 20:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Your proposal is flawed for several reasons. First, we are not just writing "general interest articles for a general encyclopaedia for the general public". By its breath and being a digital encyclopedia we have lots of specialist articles. You may want to read up on pillar 1. Quoting: "[Wikipedia] incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Second, we are aiming for the best sources on a topic, not for its most recent and most accessible one. If the best books are in hidden in a library then you should consider entering one. Third, inline sources are first and foremost provided to comply with our verifability policy; at the same time, they should indeed help you to learn about a topic. But you cannot seriously expect that all the best books are flying around on the net for you to download for free. If you really want to learn something, going deep into a topic, you should certainly consider buying some good books or textbooks on it. Fourth, nothing is more annoying that someone with no knowledge on a difficult topic, coming along with some Google Books searched references and claiming that these are to be put into the article, when they are clearly poor and inappropriate. But on finding a better balance: certainly, when you've got two equal-quality sources, and one is free and the other one is not, you should go for the free one. But preferring a worse source for a paywalled one, no. Btw, there is always WP:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. Nageh (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hear, hear! To write a high quality article, you have to draw on the best available material. And for some years to come, these will be on paper. Researching the article on Robert Oppenheimer, I read several high quality books from cover to cover, one of which won a Pullitzer Prize (the subject is quite well covered); but few of these are are available online, and some may not be for decades. Reviewing another article recently, I travelled to a nearby library to obtain the books necessary to perform the spot checks. Someone will be able to repeat this process in a few years; but this may not be true of online sources, which come and go due to link rot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as this would discourage the use of almost any post-1923 academic journal material in citations. Content must be verifiable in principle, not necessarily in every single case. In a research paper, for example, or a nonfiction book, references/sources are often present but that doesn't mean there exist for every reader to be able to access. Sources should be accessible to at least some number of interested readers, but not all of them. Yes, English and free sources are preferred because it makes verifying easier, but we should not have to spend extra time finding similarly relevant sources if using a nonfree or non-English one suffices. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  23:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is exactly backwards of where this project needs to be going. There is much too much sourced out to quasi-semi-dubious web sources because that stuff is "easy"... What's needed is for people to get their asses down to the library and start making use of university press monographs and journal articles. The BEST sources are often times less accessible or FAR less accessible than the web gunk. Nor should we be kissing Google Books' behind, since that is getting to be more and more of a for-profit enterprise, as expected. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And here's an example of what I'm talking about (work in progress, don't go all ONESOURCE on me!)... Compare the very accessibly-sourced, lightweight, and shitty A versus the correctly sourced out B. Carrite (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * See my comment below, where I indicate that the book you are using is available for snippet views - .  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Snippet views aren't the least bit helpful for anything except selling books. Carrite (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I suggest you manage your frustrations on your futon, and leave encyclopaedism to people willing to audit the full scope of available sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Oppose. For many subjects, the best sources are still relatively inaccessible. Perhaps we should revisit the issue in 4 or 5 years and see where things are at. Kaldari (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as exactly how not to do it. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, compiled from the best sources we can find, not a collection of trawlings from the net. As for Google books, it should never be cited as a source, because it isn't one. The source is the book itself, and if you don't have access to it, you shouldn't be citing it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually arguing any point as I can see there is currently no consensus - I just want to clear up a misunderstanding. Google books is not a source, it is a resource - it contains sources. It may help to think of it as a library where texts may easily be found. So if someone is using a text, it seems worth checking to see if the text is available on Google Books. It's a quick check, simply copy and paste the name into Google Books, and see what is available. For example, Carrite is using James N. Giglio's H.M. Daughterty and the Politics of Expediency for the Harry M. Daugherty article. His first cite is to support that Daugherty's father, John H. Daugherty, was the son of Scotch-Irish immigrants and worked as a farmer and tailor. Well, the book is not available fully scanned, but it does have a snippet view that supports the info. It's not much effort to link to that page, but can aid the reader. While a snippet view is not ideal, it's a bit better than nothing at all.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And who tells you that just because a snippet view is available this is really a good source on the topic? Maybe it is really poor one otherwise, and you are misled into further looking up this source (wanting to learn more about it as you claim)? It really is at the discretion of the editor to decide which sources to use, at his/her best knowledge and in accordance with our guidelines. Nageh (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the above. While we don't get points on Wikipedia for tracking down obscure theses or editiones princepes we shouldn't discourage the use of print sources or paywalled scholarly databases where they are the best sources, as they very often are.  A sentence pointing out the desirability of using (or at least linking) freely available source material might be crafted, but this is not it.  Eluchil404 (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above. Further, Google links should be viewed as transitory when pages cited have been checked, read and the book is properly cited per WP:RS standards. Kierzek (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Many times, the best source for something may only be found in print and may not readily accessible online. The proposal seems to reek of FUTON bias, in my opinion. --MuZemike 07:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a search engine. Warden (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose articles should be based on the best sources available, regardless of whether they are online or not. Demoting the use of offline sources to "occasionally" could seriously damage article content, especially if the policy were to encourage editors to cite public domain material (the vast majority of which is very old). Obviously we shouldn't go out of our way to make sources as inaccessible as possible but that is in no way a justification for the proposed change. The comparison to the sentence on foreign language sources is not a good one: the average reader will not be able to check whether a foreign language source supports a statement because we can't assume the average reader speaks any language other than English. On the other hand it isn't unreasonable to ask a reader to go to a library, something that would be normal in an academic setting. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 18:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The reality is that most resources are in paper form. As I have stated before Google and similar search engines are of limited value:
 * 1) They only lists things for which there is an internet presence and not everything even as recent as 2002 and 2004 is accessible on line.
 * 2) Such search engines use text so if the information is in a format like a pdf composed of photoscans, or archived away in some compressed format (like .zip) they will not directly see it.
 * 3) Many times such searches will display the most recent version of a page so if the page is updated then odds are if will find that version and NOT the one for several years ago.
 * 4) poorly designed or limited access sites that can restrict what these engines can find.


 * For example, the Economic Crime Summit site is not a very Google or even Internet Archive friendly site. It is very graphics heavy providing Google with little to nothing to look for and many missing pages when Internet Archive archived it.  So while you can bring up the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference the overview link that would tell you who presented what doesn't work.  The 2004 Economic Crime Summit Conference archive is even worse as that was in three places and none of the archived links tells you anything about the papers presented.
 * Furthermore, what little Internet archive has of the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference shows how limited Google is. "Impact of Advances in Computer Technology in Evidence Processing" and "Impact of Advances in Computer Technology in Evidence Processing" were two programs for the Wednesday, May 8 2002 Economic Crime Summit Agenda.  Google cannot find them!  I will repeat that; Google cannot find two programs we know were part of the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference and at one time had an internet presence.


 * The search engines are a tool and at times a very limited tool. They are not nor should they ever be a replacement for paper sources.   Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Verifiablity means that the fact can be verified, not whether the source is in English or on line. Of course, if English and/or on-line sources are available they can always be added, but that is not a matter of verifiability policy. Because if such sources are not available, then the Sanskrit source in an obscure library is just fine (as long as it's reliable. Rlendog (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Get reliable sources wherever you can find them. No limits here.   D r e a m Focus  00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What does condition #2 of WP:SPS mean?
Let's say I have a self-published source. The source makes a claim about a third party. Is it OK to cite this source as long as I use in-text attibution? IOW, can I say:

"Source A says third-party is C"

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. That's the essence of what clause 2 is designed to prevent.  On the other hand "Organization A's website says its corporate goals include foo" would be perfectly OK. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have any opinion about IRMEP case if the source was established unreliable in WP:RSN could be used for its opinion on the third parties?--Shrike (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not truth example
Here's a perfect example of why the original "verifiability, not truth" statement was important: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources. Its a real shame that this has been watered down to the extent which it has. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." springs to mind. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 16:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO that looks like a fairly straightforward implementation of wp:ver. I don't see how "not truth" relates to that at all. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That reply exemplifies the disconnect that's been in play here for the last several months. The editor on the IRS talk page said: "editor should be sure that in fact that newspaper professionals did report & edit the story firsthand", which is original research, and is absolutely not something that Wikipedia editors should be doing. Frankly, we're not trustworthy enough (as a group) to be doing that sort of work, even if it may be blindingly obvious in some cases. In a hypothetical example involving an old newspaper article which misreports some event, it's still important to talk about the newspaper report. The vital issue is discussing the fact that the newspaper report was later discredited (if it was), which has the side effect of conveying "the truth" naturally. Neutering "Verifiability, not truth" opens up all sorts of conflict on Wikipedia, mostly about fringe theories and political conflicts. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The only antidote to bad or mistaken RS reporting is later correction by other RS'es.  RS != perfect, RS'es can be wrong, but we can't and shouldn't use OR to combat RS mistakes.  We use better, more current RS'es that discuss the other RS' error. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But what if the mistake is in the best, most current (or only) source? Formerip (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then that's what we say, unless and until something else is printed which contradicts it (at which point we usually report both, unless the original is somehow intentionally damaging or something). — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous. That's the whole reason why VnT is stoopid. Formerip (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you propose we be more correct than the most current RS'es without engaging in OR ourselves? This is why "VnT is stupid" is stupid. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's spelled with a double "o". We can be more correct that the most current RS - if we know that the most current RS is wrong - by declining to include the information in Wikipedia. Formerip (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's rather the root of my concern below. Who gets to declare that information that has been accurately added from an RS is inaccurate? I don't think a single editor should have the authority to declare such, and I'm not sure that multiple editors would necessarily be any more reliable than the supposedly "reliable" source. I suppose there is an argument to be made that Talk page consensus can determine that information should be withheld, but do we really want to set a precedent that information that appears to meet all of the criteria for inclusion can nonetheless be excluded solely because there's a consensus on the Talk page not to include it? I'm not sure how to feel about this notion. This is why I feel it may be inappropriate to remove reliably-sourced information only if another reliable source can be provided that contradicts the first. Doniago (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That whole linked section was about whether or not it was an original story as published. I don't even see any "truth" issues being discussed much less how "not truth" wording would be helpful there. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * uh... I don't think that's true... one or the other of us has misread what was said in the linked section, I think (or we're misunderstanding each other here). — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 22:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the example I gave in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence/Archive_1 is much better on how VnT has taken on this weird Twlight Zoneish quality where editors are saying that we should keep in a source even when it can be proven to be wrong as demonstrated by the following:

"Maybe the author of the source cited is in error, but correcting sources is not within the scope of the Wikipedia project. The source was published and vetted by the Oxford University Press, so it is certainly a reliable source. This is another one of those instances in which "verifiability, not truth" is what matters for Wikipedia. It can be verified that the author claims that the first recorded use was from 1909, whether or not his claim is accurate. In this case, it looks like you're correct that the phrase appears in earlier publications, but it's beyond us to counter the author's claim because doing so would be original research." (John Shandy` • talk 04:52, 8 September 2011)

"So it seem to me we have two choices, either to remove that particular bit or to see if we can work in the material without violating OR. The former is not particularly attractive and the latter would be difficult as some of the sources BruceGrubb has found are primary sources, and I'm not sure that the secondary sources are about conspiracy theories per se but may be passing mentions. Do any of these source appear usable to others?" (Nuujinn (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2011)

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

Here we see the totally off the wall accuracy be damned mentality VnT as it currently exists can produce.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So... you know better, and what people may actually read before they come here should be vetted... by Wikipedia editors? Seriously? — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 17:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is ignoring basic structural questions. Are you saying that policy should forbid removal of material based on inaccuracy considerations?  North8000 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It never has, so I don't see the point in creating straw-men here. Anyway... I slogged through Bruce's rant already this morning. I'm getting weary of this topic, again. Here's the thing: You guys can filibuster and talk all opposition into submission here, and you can even change the text of the policy page itself. One of the main things that I think of when I think about "Verifiability" is the old "Verifiability, not truth" statement. That obviously bothers you, but I have yet to see anything more than hand wringing and whinging over the subject, and so my opinion remains. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 18:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the bottom line should be that whether or not we "know" a statement is "inaccurate", we can't remove it just because we "know" it is "inaccurate" if it is reliably sourced. A reliable source needs to be provided that refutes the "inaccurate" information or we're back to talking about original research. Of course, then there's the question of the precedence of RS'es...I suppose perhaps both should be used with a note indicating that they do contradict each other. For a wikipedia editor to remove sourced material solely on the grounds that they "know" it is "inaccurate" though...that doesn't seem supportable to me. It's OR via deletion. Doniago (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course we can remove such things, and we do all the time. It may be that the text was misread, or that the author said something unclearly, or that the author is just wrong. In any case, our articles should not reports things inaccurately, and when the best way to avoid that is just to remove something, we should. "Original research" only refers to content in articles, it does not refer to the exercise of editorial discretion to decide what to leave out. That is just called "writing". &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that WP editors are entitled to remove sourced material solely because they believe that the material is inaccurate, even if they would be unable to find a source that contradicts the material in question? Doniago (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, we do that all the time. The only thing that the OR policy prevents is for us to actually say "this is wrong" in the text of the article without a source. We do not need a source for things that are not in the article. The writing process is entirely about deciding which things to include and which things not to include, and verifiability is just one consideration among many others. The consensus process is how we ensure that things are not removed frivolously - if someone objects to a removal, the matter can be discussed at length on the talk page until agreement is found. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it must be a matter of the articles I patrol; I can't recall any instances of an editor removing reliably sourced information claiming it was inaccurate...if I was to see that occur I would likely challenge the removal and ask the removing editor to provide a reliable source contradicting the one that included the allegedly inaccurate information. Doniago (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many times the appearance that a statement is sourced does not match reality, because sources can easily be misinterpreted or taken out of context. In such cases, it's unlikely that any other "contradictory" source would exist, because the supposed source for the claim being made is being misused. In general the best way to handle a passing error in a single source is "don't bother to mention it", since the due weight for such things is zero, and the consideration of due weight is just as important as verifiability (if not more). &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 19:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know man, I'm not trying to be snarky but the one thing that keeps springing to mind when I get into these discussions is: [citation needed]. I mean, in these hypothetical cases, if you know that something which is cited in an article is incorrect then just add an explanation as to why it's wrong along with another cite. Or replace it with an updated cite, depending on the situation. The whole "say where you got it" expression comes to mind. Simply trying to bury viewpoints that are published in sources doesn't seem very constructive, you know? I think that what you're saying may be something like "verifiability isn't the only consideration" though, which is a sentiment with with I agree wholeheartedly (and, not coincidentally, is the reason that I've never understood the hand-wringing over "Verifiability, not truth"). — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 20:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize; I thought it was clear that I was referring not to situations where an editor has misconstrued the source, but where the accuracy of the generally reliable source itself is being called into question. Doniago (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even in that case, it depends on many things, like what source it is. If we're talking about a single passing error in a newspaper story, where no other source had that info, and it appears the story was just wrong, the due weight is again probably zero. If we're talking about something that is cited to one source but in principle could be cited to many other reliable sources, that's different. Editors are expected to use their judgement on each case. But as a general principle, just because one "reliable" source has said something doesn't mean that NPOV would allow it to be included in our article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The "filibustering" is what's gone on to keep VnT in, despite the fact that for the last year or so, a clear majority have wanted it gone. Wikipedia editors can and must make judgments about which sources are trustworthy and which aren't; it's our duty as people who presume to educate and inform the public, and it's enshrined in WP:RS besides. The purpose of making those judgments about the reliability of a source is to ensure that Wikipedia's articles are reasonably accurate, and words like "accurate" and "reliable source" and "trustworthy" are only meaningful in the context of truth and falsehood. Ohm's Law and Jclemens, I don't like to disagree with either of you because usually I'm broadly on the same side of an argument.  But in this case I'm forced to, and I find your attitude to this quite alarming.  There's something really quite sinister about an encyclopaedia writer who doesn't mind articles full of lies.— S Marshall  T/C 19:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Folks... The VNT debate is the subject of an on going mediation. May I suggest that we allow the mediation process to work.  Blueboar (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * pfft... mediation, what a joke. What, is some "mediator" going to tell me what I can and can't have an opinion on? am I not allowed to have an interest in what our policies say, simply because some group of editors decided some where, some time, that "this policy shall say this!"? These "it's in mediation" things piss me off. You guys have fun with your dispute resolution procedural BS, I'll just wait here for you all to finish. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 20:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's fine... my point was to ask that you do wait until we are finished. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ohms law, it would be much simpler and less BS if you just said what you think should be and everybody else obeyed. :-) North8000 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, cause that's not at all what you've been doing... *roll eyes* Anyway, whatever. I'll be around 6 months from now when you all are done with talking about this page in places other than it's talk page... — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

@BruceGrubb, please stop bringing up that example to argue your case. It's disingenuous and actually quite dishonest to pull (at least my) quote out of context, because you didn't find a secondary source to refute a single assertion of an RS, but rather found primary sources that offered contradictory examples and yearned for us to editorialize the article's text with commentary on the inaccuracy. Plus, we immediately removed the content for which you called its accuracy into question. I have expressed my disdain for your misrepresentations of that conflict in the past while also respecting you as an editor and commending your ability to find sources. I have never used "VnT" to keep inaccurate content in an article, only to keep out editor commentary and juxtapositioning that breaches WP:OR by WP:SYNTH.

@Ohms law, I have great respect for Blueboar and I must recommend that you lighten up on him. First of all, Blueboar has been extraordinarily patient as one of numerous editors committed to a literally months long if not year long or greater dispute over VnT. Blueboar helped setup a mediation as attempt to resolve the issue for both proponents and opponents of the current verbiage. Second of all, Blueboar is actually one of the strongest proponents of "VnT" (and some of its slight variants). I also advise against assuming bad faith with regards to North8000. I don't think anyone truly intends to stonewall because, face it... this has got to be one of the most boring (yet not unimportant) disputes and nobody's sanity wins as long as it persists. Frankly, I think it boils down to the two factions having experienced predominantly one of two possible fundamental misinterpretations of VnT (either using VnT to exclude accurate content for lack of RS, or using VnT to include inaccurate content for presence of RS). It seems more and more to me like a debate over "which is the worse offense and what language is the best at deterring/compensating for it." You don't have to participate in the mediation, but perhaps consider giving it its one chance? It's no sweat off your back. John Shandy`  • talk 08:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we've ever interacted directly, so "hi!" { Anyway, I do respect both Blueboar and North (See, for example: Revision as of 22:08, July 17, 2011). What I don't respect is Mediation, which is a toothless farce. I swear, once the Mediation thing is done, when I end up getting it thrown in my face (which I can guarantee will happen) then we're going straight to arbitration. Mediation has absolutely zero jurisdiction here, and I find it's use to attempt to control the content of policy to be disruptive, to say the least. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 19:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record... Ohms has never shown anything but respect for me ... and I did not take his (her?) comments personally. (I could quibble about the depth of his respect... he really should show me more deference, by agreeing with my opinions more often. But then that is a character flaw that many Wikipedian's share.) :>) Blueboar (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If a self-published book is taught at the university level, is it considered reliable?
This is purely out of curiosity. Given: Is that self-published book considered reliable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Person is a published author through a non-self-publishing house.
 * 2) That person later self-publishes a book in a related field.
 * 3) An accredited university hires the person to teach a class which then uses the book as part of the curriculum.
 * It is "generally reliable" at step #2. #3 doesnt really matter much. I cannot think of anything that would "disqualify" it at step #3 that wouldnt have been applicable at step #2. --  The Red Pen of Doom  21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say you need to look at specifics. If the university hired him to teach his opinion, then it's probably reliable for his opinion, but not more; and if they hired him to teach factual matter, then it's probably reliable for that.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The book makes claims about third-parties, basically market analysis in the technology sector. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there are too many variables here. Is the original publisher OUP, Random House, or Regnery? Is the "related field" as related as classical thermodynamics and nuclear physics or as related as Summerian pottery and Akkadian pottery? Is the "accredited university" Yale or Liberty? I'd be somewhat sceptical - most academics publish their textbooks through reliable publishers (and publishers like to publish decent books because the students are effectively a captive audience). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that third-party humans or third-party businesses? It matters.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In the particular case that inspired my question, it's about third-party tech companies such as Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Facebook, Twitter, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * SPS's prohibition on statements about third parties is a BLP-imposed limitation. It does not apply to businesses because they are not living people.  You may use a self-published source to say things like "Alice Expert said that Microsoft's advertising campaign involved giving lollipops to young children", but not to say things like "According to Alice Expert, Jerry Seinfeld starred in television advertising for Microsoft products".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, and thanks for the clarification. You forced me to double-check WP:SPS and WP:ABOUTSELF and you are correct. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Specifics, please, AQFN. In most cases, arguably yes.  If this is, for example, Professor Patrick Holford, then no: absolutely nothing he's ever written is reliable, self-published or not.  Need to look at the actual case to answer the question.— S Marshall  T/C 23:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize for lack of specifics. The other books are from a respected publishing house, roughly similar to Wrox Press, so no, not like Regnery Publishing.  The university isn't Ivy league but ranked by Forbes in the top 100 universities in the US.  However, the fields are fairly distant, software development and market analysis of tech companies.  No, it's nothing like Patrick Holford.  My question isn't so much about the rules of WP:SPS, but rather the fact that it's being taught at a university level.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if any of this really helps, but... This being WT:V, rather than WT:RS, I'd say that being actually published (in contrast to, for example, a class handout) helps a lot with verifiability. As for reliability, I'd think of it as being sort of similar to a faculty member's university web page. Being self-published means that it isn't peer-reviewed (which would be a potentially fatal flaw if the subject matter were, instead, medical, and subject to WP:MEDRS), but on the other hand, the combined facts that the person has published traditionally and the person has an academic appointment tend to give credence to the source. (If those two facts were absent, I think there would be a lot of doubt.) It sounds like this is the kind of case where it is probably reasonable to use the source, but write the page so as to attribute it. In other words, "According to John Doe, tech companies are such and such" is better in this case than simply "Tech companies are such and such". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You could take the actual situation to WP:RS/N and get a suitably specific third opinion on the source's reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How reliable are newspapers in non-free societies?
OK, so I'm watching a content dispute - at a distance - and the issue of the reliability of several sources was raised. I checked into one of the sources and apparently, it's run by the propaganda department of an authoritarian regime. Other examples of such countries might include North Korea, Iran, Cuba, etc. where freedom of the press doesn't exist. How reliable are such newspapers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give examples of countries where "freedom of the press" exists? I can't think of any... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:RS/N is the appropriate place to discuss the specific reliability of specific sources. Your use of analytical categories developed by the propaganda wing of the United States during the Cold War indicates that you're driving an ideological line, rather than questioning the reliability of a particular source.  Fifelfoo (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * An unfortunate effect of the WP:NPOV policy is that we are required to report the views of totalitarian, dictatorial regimes at topics where their official stance is significant. If you have concerns with their reliability with respect to a particular topic, you can always treat them either as a WP:PRIMARY source or as a WP:RSOPINION for topics where the government is not directly involved. Encyclopedic neutral content needs to include what propagandistic governments say about themselves; if this helps to ease your conscience, remember that you should also report the opinion of other sources stating opposing views. Diego (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, for example, is Rodong Sinmun reliable for the fact that Lee Myung-bak (President of South Korea) and his political allies are obsessed by sycophantic treachery and are using tricks to suppress and stamp out the progressive forces and maintain its fascist system of dictatorship? Now that I think about it, my question is ridiculous.  At best, they're useful for explaining the authoritarian regime's opinion.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In such cases, wp:ATTRIBUTEPOV is key. Readers must know whose POV they are reading. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion about the composition of a government or a newspaper doesn't matter—take it to RS/N in a specific form if you have a specific reliability concern and stop soapboxing this talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ultimately assessing the reliability of a source is an editorial decission, so the judgement of Wikipedians does matter. Diego (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently suggesting to an editor that their uncritical use of US Cold War ideology to judge sources is "insane". Similarly "insane" is suggesting that source reliability is always specific and conditional, and we don't give generic answers.  A Quest For Knowledge currently isn't displaying the kind of editorial judgement in relation to sources that is desirable; nor are they displaying the kind of editorial judgement in relation to civility that is desirable (diff, diff). Fifelfoo (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for not disappointing me. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have something to say about evaluating sources? Talk pages are not for discussing editor behavior. I'd be more interested in a link to the discussion where these disputed sources have been debated - is it to be found at the articles linked above? Diego (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the diff. Talk page discussion is here.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the obvious answer is, that it depends on the particular information being sourced. Generally all newspaper information needs to viewed with an critical eye and in particular those being published under an authoritarian/totalitarian government without a "free" press. However being part of the "free" press carries not particular reliability status as such, it only means there is possibility for quality journalism, which doesn't mean that it is actually pursued by all (or even any) publication. In fact the free press has produced plenty of publications (much of the yellow press and plenty of other publication with "opinionism" replacing (informative) journalism), for which the average reliability is even below many publications of the "unfree" press.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Self Published summary sources
Are self published articles written by a private organization like the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) considered reliable when there is no author/expert taking credit for the authorship? The policy reads: 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. (emphasis mine) I have seen some editors use a web-page article from the TJF as a reliable source, but there is no "established expert" or author and the info in the article has not been published by reliable third-party publications. Are these web page articles with no author considered reliable sources? (Have posted this in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard also but would appreciate feed back here, per citing current policy.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * One clarification to your understanding of SPS... to qualify for the "expert exemption" it is not necessary for the specific information appearing in an expert's SPS to have been published in another source ... what we require is that the expert has published material in the relevant academic field (and thus have a reputation as being an expert on the topic.) For example, if a scientist has written lots of books and journal articles on quantum physics, we can consider him an expert on quantum physics... so if he comments on something related to quantum physics in his university's departmental blog, we can consider this self-published source as a reliable source.
 * Having said that... back to your question relating to TJF... If there is no expert author credited, then we can not apply the "expert exemption" to WP:SPS. We don't know if the person writing the material actually knows what he/she is talking about. The website is only reliable for facts about TJF and attributed statements as to the opinions of TJF, subject to the limitations set out at WP:ABOUTSELF. Blueboar (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't the right venue for a question about a specific source, WP:RSN is, I don't know why you have double posted. Whether it is reliable or not depends on the nature of the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This policy has always treated self-published sources as being one person, or a few persons, who are the author(s). Publications by substantial organizations are not considered self-published unless the organization is equivalent to a vanity press. I have objected to this point of view in the past to no avail. Whether a particular organization is actually substantial or really consists of a handful of people would be a matter for the reliable sources noticeboard. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As for the "substantiveness", the advisory board of the TJF's Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies includes Bernstein, Freeman, Gordon-Reed, Onuf, Rakove, of NYU, Yale, Harvard, UVirginia, and Stanford, respectively - all major figures in current Jefferson research at major universities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "author" of an unsigned piece is almost always the organization itself, i.e., Coca-Cola, Inc. is the author of www.coca-cola.com. The SPS policy is not written well enough to accommodate this aspect of reality.  It's extremely unusual for an organization to be published elsewhere, so the "previously published by reliable third-party publications" measure simply doesn't fit.  An equivalent measure would be whether the organization (not individuals within it) is quoted or cited (favorably) in properly published pieces.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR
I think a little more clarification in WP:CIRCULAR is needed, in that it should state that if a website uses "any" Wikipedia information to compile an article of its own, then the entire website is useless as a source. About a week ago, a user debated that although a website said some of its information was from Wikipedia, given that we do not know which parts came from Wikipedia, it could be used. Eventually after wasting a good deal of time someone else stepped in and ended the debate. But there needs to be a really "clear statement" that as soon as a website says its content is Wikipedia-based then it can not be used as source at all. That user argued that because a website used some Wikipedia and had also compiled information from multiple other sources it could be used. So I think the "one bullet, the website is dead" argument should be clarified in WP:CIRCULAR. It should probably say: "if a website uses any Wikipedia information, that usage alone will automatically disqualify the website as a source for Wikipedia, given that it may not be claear how that information has been mixed with other items on the website". History2007 (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My first reaction to this was that it went too far... that (assuming we can tell which information on the website comes from Wikipedia and which information comes from some other source), it is OK to cite the website for the non-Wikipedia derived information.
 * But upon further reflection, I realized that if we know where the website got the various bits information it presents, then there is no need to cite that website for the non-Wikipedia derived information... we can skip over the problematic website and use the non-Wikipedia source that the problematic website used.
 * For example, if "compiledfacts.com" cites both Wikipedia and the Oxford English Dictionary, and we know which bits of information comes from the OED... we can go to the OED, confirm those bits of information... and cite the OED directly. :So, I am leaning towards support for this proposal. Blueboar (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I really think we must always err on the side of caution. My general issue is that I am very unhappy about the glut of slef-published websites, and now self published books that are appearing based on Wikipedia. I was once looking up something in a book in 2011 and said "Didn't I write that?" Then realized that the book had used a large part of a Wiki-article I had written in 2010, verbatim without reference or acknowledgement. That is, of course, a separate issue, but highlights the fact that people realize that the price charged for Wikipedia content is pretty reasonable - so they just use it. These days Wiki-information is getting mixed in with many websites and once it has been mixed in, it may be hard to unscramble the egg. So we must be cautious for the sake of reliability. History2007 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * However, on the third hand, very many standard news sites now use Wikipedia as a source, wether openly or without acknowledgement. There is the famous case of Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg's alleged nth name "Wilhelm", which was introduced in the German Wikipedia, then removed as unsourced, then published in several quality press publications, who had picked it up from Wikipedia in the mean time, and then reintroduced to Wikipedia, now referenced to those newspapers. Errors happen, so we should not disqualify sources based on occasional problems. Self-published web sites are usually bad as sources for other reasons. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the issue is not whether a particular source at some point references WP as well (even scholarly works do that occasionally/increasingly), but whether we actually do have a concrete case of (likely) circular information. Those example websites or books being essentially WP clones are suitable for a different reason. Usually they are not reliable to begin with (no reputable author, no reputable publisher) and then usually have plenty a concrete circular information anyhow (in case of clones), for which they couldn't be used either. I it is important to cautious, but caution always needs to be applied in a concrete context.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes any source that uses information from wikipedia should be set as unreliable as we can't necessarily tell where the information from wikipedia is being used. "Scholarly works" that reference wikipedia should also be thrown out to avoid circular referencing. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, they should not. It completely depends on what they actually reference WP for. Essentially it is the same problem as above you cannot apply a policy in a braindead purely formalistic manner.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The heart of the difference we have may be that I may have seen more editors who want to use "weak sources" and I see your line of reasoning as an invitation to endless debates about useless sources. Why not let them find a really good WP:RS source instead of relying on some compiled website which mixes information from Wikipedia? That type of relaxed attitude towards source quality will in the end lead to lower reliability. History2007 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree regarding compiled websites. My point however is that you cannot decide between good and bad simply based whether WP reference exists in a source or not. To give a concrete example the probably most authoritative and comprehensive source on the Monty Hall Problem is a math book by the mathematician Rosenhouse, he does however at one point describe in his book the problem's representation in WP as well and maybe draws inspiration from it, but by no means rests his arguments on WP claims and it definitely would be a rather bad idea to through him out because in one paragraph of his book he has referenced WP. Though that scenario is no doubt less pressing and clearly less common, we do nevertheless have occasionally a problem with editors trying to apply policies in a literal manner without thinking and regarding any context (what i called "braindead" above), maybe i have come across them more often than you.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with IRWolfie. The problem is the scrambled info-source. I do agree that if the NY Times mentions Wikipedia in an article that does not disqualify the entire NY Times website, but the Guttenberg issue was time-based, was noticed and corrected. However, compiled sites do need further clarification in WP:CIRCULAR, and I started this thread because I hope for policy that helps me avoid debate in 3 months about yet another Wiki-derived website. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How reliable are modern newspapers for general news, considering there appear to have been hoaxes which have caught out practically every major newspaper ? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There was a page called Journalism scandals and after three (yes three) Afds, it was deleted. It mentioned Jayson Blair, Janet Cooke etc. So the newspapers do have problems. But that is a separate issue. History2007 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I think this goes too far. I'm aware of at least one instance in which something I wrote here appeared on the website a disease-related charitable organization.  The fact that they re-use my text as part of one lay-oriented summary page does not invalidate the signed articles by world-class experts on the other pages at that website.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the website? What is the page? History2007 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete this if you want but,
How funny would it be to find a 'needs citation' tag here? Jaredjeya (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Self-publishing companies
After several discussions at the Reliable sources noticeboard involving self-published sources, we've created: Editors are welcomed to help expand and improve both of these. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * List of self-publishing companies in article space for notable self-publishing houses
 * WP:List of self-publishing companies in Wikipedia space for notable and non-notable self-publishing houses

Edit request on 27 March 2012
Change the first sentence from:
 * "Verifiability on Wikipedia is the reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article."

To:
 * "Verifiability on Wikipedia is the reader's ability to check that cited sources directly support the information in an article."

Currently, the first sentence implies that 'cited sources that directly support the information in an article' definitely exist, and that 'Verifiability' is the ability to of a reader to 'check' them (dunno what that means, read and grade them?). This is a typo I believe. By moving the word 'that', the sentence takes on a more reasonable meaning, that verifiability is about the ability to check (verify) that cited sources directly support information in the article. LK (talk) 06:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the former is what readers do and the latter is what editors do. Seems correct to me as is. — Bility (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Like the change but oppose making it now. This section is the reason it was locked and it a subject of a mediation effort. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As North says... we are currently in the process of mediation over the opening paragraphs of this policy... so we should hold off on making any changes until that mediation is complete.
 * That said, the suggested change highlights a question that has been looming in the background and has never been adequately addressed... when we cite a source, what exactly are we verifying?
 * The current language implies that we are verifying the fact that sources supporting the information exist. This reflects the original intent of the policy... the requirement for verifiability on Wikipedia grew out of WP:NOR, and the original concept was essentially that we needed to verify that the material we add to our articles is not Original Research.
 * The suggested change would shift us away from that original intent... if adopted, we would be saying that we are verifying the information presented in the article. That may be the way we want to go... but it would be a fairly significant change from the original intent... and not a step we should take without a lot of thought and discussion. Blueboar (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I thought that a piece of information is not supposed to be in an article in the first place, unless there is a source for it. (Except for information about which there is no dispute, or at least that's what this policy implies.)  And hopefully, it is a source that says (or implies) that the information is true, otherwise it isn't worth much as a source.  So I think that in a way, we are using the source to "verify" that the information presented in the article is true, in fact we are using the source to provide the information that we put in the article.  Right?  Neutron (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The "cited sources" bit is wrong. We care whether (reliable) sources exist, i.e., have been WP:Published in the real world.  Material must never be included unless "there is a source for it—in the real world."  Material may be included without a source being WP:CITEd  in the article (unless it is one of the four types of material listed at WP:MINREF, for which iWP:Inline citations are mandatory [only one of which has a deadline for providing the citation; the other three require an inline citation either before the heat death of the universe or whenever your fellow editors choose to deal with it).
 * I generally do not support changes to the lead during the mediation, but this is actually an error. The simplest solution is to remove the word "cited" entirely.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that you mention it, "cited" clearly is an error. Possibly a non-controversial fix? Note that this is not the original edit request.  North8000 (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As is inevitable with any one sentence pseudo-summary/pseudo-introduction, it is imprecise. And, upon rigorous dissection, "imprecise" means "wrong", so we should not give it a rigorous dissection. In Wikipedia, the definition of wp:verifiability is "complies with the wp:verifiability policy". And that's not using a word to define itself; the first is an attribute, and the second is a policy. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, this issue is likely to be fixed by what ever we come up with at the Mediation... so there is really no point in discussing it too much now. Blueboar (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

To remove the erroneous word "cited" from the first sentence, per comments above. (The link to WP:RS should be kept.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the change because I do not believe that "cited" is an error. A reader has the practical ability to verify the content of an article only if the sources for this content are actually cited in the article, and not if they merely exist somewhere but are not cited. Therefore, verifiability does require that sources are actually cited in the article in conjunction with the material that is thereby made verifiable. I also do not support the initially proposed wording change for this reason.  Sandstein   17:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please get consensus for the change before requesting an edit. <span style="font:small-caps 1.3em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#442244;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#447744;">| gossip _  15:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, I'd like to learn more about your views here. Consider your first claim:  "A reader has the practical ability to verify the content of an article only if the sources for this content are actually cited in the article, and not if they merely exist somewhere but are not cited."
 * The "content of the article" says that the human hand normally has four fingers and a thumb. Do you stand by your claim that "A reader has the practical ability to verify the content of an article only if the sources for this content are actually cited in the article, and not if they merely exist somewhere but are not cited" for this particular piece of content, or do you agree with me that in at least some instances, the reader does have "the practical ability to verify the content of an article" even when the sentence is unsourced?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As a practical matter, verifiability is a concern only for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged because it is not common knowledge or because it makes an unusual or extraordinary claim, or concerns a living person. In the example you cite, verifiability is not likely to be a practical concern in any good faith situation.  Sandstein   20:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. But the statements made in the lead about what constitutes verifiability and what must be verifiable aren't limited to CHALLENGED or LIKELY material.  They are (explicitly) about all material, as in "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia..."  It seems to me that all material must be verifiable, and that some material can be verifiable without a single source being cited.
 * Consequently, I believe that the claim in the current first sentence—the claim that all uncited material is, by definition, unverifiable—is wrong. Common knowledge, for example, ought to be verifiable even when uncited.  Do you agree with me?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Verifiable means "the reader is in a position to verify the accurateness of a statement". This means that if something is truly common knowledge, it is verifiable even if it is uncited, because the reader already knows that it is true without having to look it up. But as I said, that is not a situation in which verifiability is a practical concern for us. Most things in an encyclopedia are not common knowledge (or there would not be a need to write an encyclopedia at all), and therefore they need to be made verifiable (at least if challenged) by a citation. And the same applies if something is not in fact common knowledge to at least one person who challenges it in good faith.  Sandstein   06:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the first sentence is incorrect. Verifiability is not dependent on the reader's ability. Material is verifiable if there is a reliable source that verifies the material, whether or not an inline citation is given, and whether or not the reader knows how to find the source. Inline citations come in when someone questions whether material is verifiable. An inline citation is then required as evidence of verifiability. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Sandstein, the definition you give in this last reply is not the one on the page at the moment. The one in the first sentence on the page says that material is unverifiable unless it is followed by a citation.  You seem to agree that common knowledge is verifiable even if not followed by a citation, and therefore you don't seem to agree with the first sentence on the page.  Would you therefore please withdraw your objection to fixing it?
 * (Bob is correct, BTW: material is verifiable even if any given user is not in a position to verify the accuracy of a statement.  Some user needs to be able to verify it, using whatever resources are available to him [or her], but that user need not be me, or you, or any other specific reader.)   WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't withdraw my objection because common knowledge is a rare special case for which it might be better to say that verifiability is not a practical problem at all. In all situations where verifiability is an actual issue, i.e., where something is not common knowledge, verifiability (that is, putting the reader in a position to verify the truth of a statement for themselves) can only be achieved by citing the corresponding source directly in the article, not by expecting the reader to find it for themselves. It is a mistake to consider that something is already "verifiable" if the sources exist somewhere but are not cited. That assumes that the reader is just as competent at finding the proper source as the person who wrote the article - but even if that were so, finding the correct source can be a lengthy process of research, including in offline documents, and may involve adjudicating between conflicting sources. We cannot expect every reader to repeat this process for themselves. Instead, to put the reader in a position to verify that what we write is true, we need to provide them with a specific citation that they only need to look up and compare with the article. That is what is meant by "verifiable" – looked at from the perspective of the reader, not the editor.  Sandstein   05:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The definition of the term in the lead is not about "practical problems". The rest of the page should be, but the initial definition is not.
 * The lead actually specifies "all information", not "all information, except for rare special cases". We therefore need a definition that applies to "all information".
 * You are a reader. Are you completely unable to figure out whether some bit of information is verifiable if you are not being spoonfed sources?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A new accuracy section, Draft 4
Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest making that less absolute, e.g. "Verifiable material may or may not be accurate in the eye of the beholder", or something to that effect. The words "is/be" are inherently subjective there. Else it may work. So we can try:


 * Verifiable material may or may not appear to be accurate in the opinion of some editors. That material may seem potentially inaccurate to some editors is not by itself a reason for exclusion of the material.


 * That may work. History2007 (talk) 00:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I think it is too short and leaves out important information:


 * {| style="border:black solid 1px;font-size:95%;margin-left:10px"

Verifiable material may or may not be accurate and can appear to be in conflict with regards to facts. Because sources can portraying the subject from different POVs and essentially accurate within their respective points of view a conflict between sources does not automatically mean that one or more is inaccurate.
 * == Accuracy and Source Conflict ==

For this reason the fact that material can be potentially inaccurate is not by itself a reason for exclusion of the material.

=== Footnotes ===


 * }


 * This addresses the "oh these sources conflict so one or more must be inaccurate/not realible" migraine--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I will ask counsel to translate that one, then get back to you. History2007 (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Bruce, I agree with you that there is an important difference between issues of fact and conflicting points of view. For instance, it is an issue of fact whether in March 1927 the city of Nanjing was captured by forces led by the Kuomintang (as stated on the page Chiang Kaishek) or whether it was captured by forces hostile to the Kuomintang (as stated on the page Nanjing incident). On the other hand, it is an issue of interpretation whether Chiang Kaishek's leadership of the Kuomintang was a continuation of the work of the party's founder Sun Yatsen or a betrayal of Sun Yatsen.
 * Having said all that, I am not sure why it's necessary to mention conflicting points of view in a section about accuracy here.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already explained that. We are now getting editors who say "Source A says this and since your source says something different it is not reliable (effectively claiming source B is inaccurate) or it is talking about something different."--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the first sentence of Unscintillating's Draft 4, but the second is too much of a double negative. I also think it's unhelpful to readers to put so much content into footnotes. If it's worth saying, why not include it in the body text? Here is a revision... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What if the source doesn't print a retraction? I'm concerned the some editors might interpret this to mean that the source must print a retraction.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should add another example of a famous inaccuracy... E.g.Percival Lowell's work on Martian canals. I don't think Lowell himself retracted, but his thesis was demolished by astronomers with better telescopes... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually for that particular example we have a reliable source--Carl Sagan in his Cosmos series the "Blues for a Red Planet" episode: "There is no doubt that Lowell's canals were of intelligent origin; the only question was which end of the telescope the intelligence was on.  Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves."--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like any of these proposed additions, because they appear to endorse the wrong practices. Of course we can, in a Wikipedia article, deal with a headline like "Dewey Defeats Truman".  What we cannot do is to cite the headline to alter the Wikipedia article on the 1948 presidential election and declare that Dewey actually won the election.  This proposed addition makes a horrible confusion of the Use–mention distinction.  Verifiably, the Chicago paper actually printed "Dewey Defeats Truman", and nothing already in the Verifiability policy prevents Wikipedia articles from mentioning that the paper, did, in fact, write that.  However, merely because it did write that, does not mean that Wikipedia articles should report what was written as fact; that is there is a difference between saying "The paper wrote that Dewey defeated Truman in a famous headline article" and writing "In 1948, Thomas Dewey defeated Harry Truman to become the President of the U.S."  The former is perfectly allowable under current policy, and the latter should never be: several of the above proposals make it appear as though it should be.  We should never give the impression that published (but demonstrably wrong) material is OK to be represented at Wikipedia as though it is accepted as correct.  -- Jayron  32  04:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But this response is avoiding the issue, it doesn't explain how we tell editors (I think Jimbo is in this group) that we don't prevent, and don't want to prevent, using potentially unreliable material. Unscintillating (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "tiny minority" clause of UNDUE applies to "Dewey Defeats Truman", although the mistake is itself notable. Absent the anomalous nature of the erroneous headline, there is no reason for us to mention a tiny minority opinion that Dewey won, even if it hadn't been retracted, by one erroneous RS in a sea of correct RS'es, in an article on Truman's presidency.  We don't have to do anything at all to V to make this work; UNDUE already covers it, and it's an established principle of our WP:NPOV pillar. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A better example would be Frank Capra's Why We Fight series which when I reviewed it on Amazon in 2006 had the following problem:


 * 'The packaging describes the films as documentaries which they were and are not. These films are propaganda and like all propaganda there are distortions, half-truths, and outright lies. "Battle of Russia" for example says nothing about the overthrow and murder of the Czar's family or the oppressive nature of Stalin's Russia (in fact it describes them as a 'free people').'


 * Even those points that were viewed accurate when they were made have changed to where they would be called inaccurate. According to Capra "remember that date: Sept 18, 1931 a date you should remember as well as Dec 7, 1941. For on that date in 1931 the war we are now fighting begun."  Today, you would be hard pressed to find any reliable source that says WWII begun before September 1, 1939.  The Tanaka Memorial figures prominently in much of the series as a genuine plan by the Japanese government; today it is generally regarded as a forgery on par with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion though there is much debate as who was behind its creation.


 * Why We Fight is a prime example of how accuracy is a matter of how the material is being used. In this sense Why We Fight is both accurate and in accurate! --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: Accurate vs True: What does "accurate" mean? Why is the word accurate being used here rather than than the word "true"? Could it be the case that the word "true" has already been debated before and now "accurate" is the new reincarnation of "true" to perform a run-around the previous discussions? Can anything said about "accurate" also be said about "true"? So could we also say:


 * "Verifiable material may or may not be true. That material is potentially false is not by itself a reason for exclusion of the material"

Given that the page starts with the theme of "verifiability vs truth" why is the word "truth" avoided here and the word "accurate" is being used instead? A reader may rightly ask that. I would like to know that as a reader. Is the "reincarnation of truth" the theme here? So let us be open about that and address that question. History2007 (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right that "accuracy" is being used as a substitute for the word "truth". Because of the phrase "verifiability, not truth",  in Wikipedia, truth has developed undesirable connotations, at least among the editors in the discussions on this talk page. In that regard, it looks like we have our own little version of the dysfunctional society in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.
 * Also, when editors here have discussed truth, they have sometimes digressed into philosophical discussions. Accuracy doesn't seem to have that problem. --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was what surprised me once I saw how carefully the words "true" and "false" were being tiptoed around. So is it the case that the word "accuracy" is being used here to avoid the previous debate histories associated with the word "truth"? Let us be upfront about the issues and bring them out in the open. History2007 (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that the "truth" comes with a lot baggage (external and internal) and there is a good chance that at some point we 'll end up at more or less philosophical discussion of "the nature of truth" and will be dead in the water as far as any concrete policy or practical approach is concerned.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, truth does seem to have the extra baggage that it was the subject of a previous RFC which went the other way. Now, to avoid (or shall I say correct?) the "inaccuracies" that prevailed in said RFC, the new improved word "accuracy" may be considered a remedy to run around said RFC... History2007 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Truth" is a terrible word to use because it has two common meanings: Accordingly, folks against the concept of "accuracy" in Wikipedia substitute "truth" as a straw man. Accuracy is a much better term. North8000 (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Accuracy
 * Dogma or assertions of viewpoints.   E.G. if you see an article titled "The Truth about Obama", what do you expect it will contain?


 * I am sorry North, but I can not agree with that characterization - and believe me that I have studied the concepts of truth, provability, etc. in multiple contexts from mathematical logic to economics. As a simple example, consider that the case where the summary of a dogmatic statement may be less than faithful to the original text which stated it, etc. As for "Accuracy is a much better term", a better term for what? A measure of utility always needs a defined goal. History2007 (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Another way of looking at this... "Truth" often refers to big questions, addressed by philosophies and religions. Whereas accuracy is more about precision on smaller questions, matters of detail. For Wikipedia editors to try to achieve consensus on the big questions would be a mistake -- consensus probably wouldn't happen, and if it did happen it would make Wikipedia more like a religious denomination... But the smaller questions, the matters of detail, are different. There may be many different views among Wikipedians about the historical significance of the Obama presidency. But we can probably agree about a matter of detail, like what is the correct spelling of the president's name. If 99 percent of published sources say "President Obama" and 1 percent says "President Osama", it is not that difficult to work out that "President Osama" is either a typo or a joke. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 13:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see the reliance on "spelling errors" in these examples. But I do not think anyone is going to scream if spelling errors are corrected.


 * However, there is a serious issue here: what type of yardstick is used to measure when accuracy ends and truth starts? Is there some type of official "truth meter" which signals when we are out of the "accuracy zone" to which this approach applies and are in the "truth zone" where the first paragraph of the policy applies? Is there a DMZ with checkpoints? If no clear-cut demarcation between accuracy and truth can be achieved, then this approach and the main policy may conflict, rendering the policy page inconsistent. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't support this proposal, or any of its variations. The only example that has been given (Dewey Defeats Truman) is about an incident that is famous because the published information was inaccurate (or incorrect, or untrue, whichever you prefer.) As has been pointed out, the article does say in its first sentence that the published information was inaccurate. From that rare example, I do not think we can generalize that "inaccurate" or "potentially inaccurate" information is acceptable on Wikipedia. If you want to instead say that "inaccurate" information (as long as it was notable) can be mentioned in the context of a discussion about how it was inaccurate, that's fine, but I don't think we really need a policy that says that. I did think of some other examples, such as just about every article we have about a hoax (Piltdown Man, Cardiff Giant, Hitler Diaries.) Every one of those articles reports information that was "inaccurate" (the hoax itself), but they say right up front that the subject was a hoax or forgery. You might also include in this category, predictions that did not come true, such as 2011 end times prediction. We say what the prediction was, even though the prediction was untrue or incorrect or inaccurate (pick your favorite word), but we clearly state that the prediction did not come true. (Actually in the latter example it takes the article awhile to specifically state that the prediction did not come true, but I think that's ok in this particular case, where the "truth" is pretty strongly implied by the fact that we're here and having this discussion.) Neutron (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested section

 * And would the approach described above also allow a group of bright editors to "correct" statements from a book written by a Harvard professor (who may even be their teacher) if they think said professor's views are in error? In that case, it would be a very useful policy to use for noble causes such as steamrolling minority opinions. Very useful indeed. History2007 (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@History2007: Yes, when the word "accuracy" is being used in this discussion, it really means "truth". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am beginning to realize that now. This whole issue seems to be a "run around the truth vs verifiability" policy via the substitution of the word accuracy for the "unmentionable word" truth which appears in the first paragraph of this policy page. This is in effect a "run around the policy" issue. If you can not change policy, run around it. Makes sense as a strategy, except that it is far too obvious now. History2007 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The only way an editor can know if a reliable source has made a mistake, without delving into OR, is in comparison to another presumably more reliable source, (or in comparison to several similarly reliable sources). If a more reliable source contradicts a less reliable source then the less reliable source (I refer to for example, a particular news article) should not be used further. I don't think any mentions of "accuracy" or "truth" are required. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but those terms are inherently inter-related: mistake, error, truth, accuracy, etc. Now, to open the horizons: "correctness"? And "incorrect" vs "wrong" ? History2007 (talk) 13:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll shorten my wording to avoid mentioning mistakes. All that needs to be said is: If a more reliable source directly contradicts a less reliable source then the less reliable source should not be used, unless it is a statement of opinion etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Now, does a book published by Harvard University Press beat a book published by Princeton? How about Yale? Stanford? And who scores these sources? And what if these are discussions of economics, say Freshwater economics vs Saltwater economics? They contradict each other to death, to death, all the time. History2007 (talk) 13:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * For the most part it's clear cut, for example; a peer reviewed review paper beats the daily mail. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just clarifying my comment, I was saying that "accuracy" is better term merely because it does not have two completely different (common use) meanings like "truth" does.
 * The handling/assessment/actions/processes based on accuracy in Wikipedia is an immensely complex and important topic. (guidlines, policies, editors, editor conversations, article RFC's etc. IMHO if we could just stop wp:ver from doing harm in that area, those other processes would work pretty well and don't necessarily need defining. And since 99.99% of wp:ver already does no harm; only three words ("threshold" and "not truth") do harm.  So if we can keep "threshold out", and either remove or clarify "not truth" the other processes of Wikipedia would be free to and tend to tend to do a pretty good job regarding accuracy/truth.   But trying to put something on it here is fine to, although I said that I think such will prove to be a Herculean task. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you have mentioned something and I've simply missed it, but can you point to a specific instance of the Verifiability policy "doing harm"? These sorts of unfounded whinging are completely unconvincing, and frankly they make me want to simply ignore everything that you have to say. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 16:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Quest (and others)... I must ask that you not make bad faith assumptions about how other people are using words... I won't speak for others, but when I use the word "accuracy" - I don't mean "truth"... I draw a distinction between these two terms. The distinction is subtle, but I think it exists.
 * To give an example: The statement "water freezes at 0°" is true... but it is not necessarily accurate - because it is incomplete (Yes, water freezes at 0° if you are using the Celsius scale, but it freezes at 32° if one uses the Fahrenheit scale... to make the statement accurate, we need to re-write the statement to note which scale we are talking about.)
 * More to the point... in an article that exclusively uses the Fahrenheit scale, adding the statement "Water freezes at 0°" would, in fact, be inaccurate - even though that statement, as a fact on its own, it remains "true". Blueboar (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I do actually like the use of "accuracy", but there's still also an important set of cases where "truth" is the more... er, accurate, word (sorry for the unintended pun). For people that deal in Fringe territory coverage, avoiding "not truth" tends to imply that it's somehow OK for Wikipedia itself to say that "Obama is Nigerian", "the Apollo Moon landings were staged", or "the CIA assassinated Kennedy". Actually, even worse, removing "not truth" allows editors who don't like that these popular pseudo-scientific "theories" exist to go adding their own research to articles in order to specifically refute such things. There are, of course, less melodramatic examples, but I think that these convey the most relevant problem.
 * Anywho, I see that JClemmens and History2007, among others, have largely said what I would have said myself. The Verifiability policy doesn't stand alone, and we can't be making ourselves out to be actual editors, as Wikipedia editors. Regards, — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 16:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very valid points... what is making this discussion so frustrating for everyone is that nothing anyone is pointing out in this discussion is "wrong"... both "sides" have valid points and concerns. The policy can be abused in two directions... it can be used to inappropriately keep information that should be excluded... and it can be used to improperly exclude information that should be kept. We need to find the balance point that resolves the valid concerns on both "sides".  How do we prevent (or at least limit) the potential for abuse in either direction?  That is where we should be headed. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well said. If one does a structural / logical analysis of the problems, and the interaction of the policy with the problems, one could see that


 * One problem can be 90% solved by removing 2-3 words
 * The other can be 70% solved by adding 2 sentences.


 * Collectively we are not able to see/understand or implement such things. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "If reliable sources exist which show that another apparently-reliable source is demonstrably factually incorrect, the factually incorrect material should be removed. (See also WP:Inaccuracy).". <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 19:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

These concerns are why I am now saying that this new proposed section must address Source Conflict along side "accuracy".

This IMHO (with some minor tweeks) should address the relevant concerns presented.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the thing: I'm suspicious of just about any section that could possibly be offered (without expending it to become an essay on it's own) because what we're talking about here varies so much, depending on the context. "Accuracy" is good in some cases, but not as good as "truth" in some others. It all depends. That's actually why I like the original lead paragraph which included "verifiability, not truth". It was at least attention grabbing, and it works well to highlight those cases where someone with an agenda wants to cite the verifiability policy in an attempt to justify putting their own pet theory into some article. There are so many permutations where this policy is applicable though, so it seems to me that we're opening a larger can of worms than we'd be solving by getting into the weeds with some statement like this. If it were up to me the only thing on this policy page would be "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Period, end of story. All of this other stuff is nothing more than a distraction. Everything else in the policy is about the application of that principle, and would be better off living in a series of essays. I don't think that has a hope in hell of happening at this point, but it would be nice.
 * I think that the above proposal(s) have some inkling that all of what I said there being the main objection. The reaction seems to then become, "ok, what's the shortest paragraph I can tack on so that my concerns are addressed?" We all want to be heard after all, right? The problem is, finding some short and to the point couple of sentences is not at all satisfactory, for a number of reasons. If we must include interpretation of policy in the policy itself, then it really should be comprehensive. Tacking these stubs of essays into policy invariably creates more problems than it solves, if for no other reasons then the fact that everyone who comes to read it will read it though their own prism of experience and with the context where it will be applied in mind. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 21:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose this as well on the grounds that it conflicts WP:BOLD, we don't want people to feel that material which is sourced is somehow immune from being removed without extensive discussion. Some material is verifiable and irrelevent, for example, and we shouldn't need to have discussions for every single edit to an article.  The relevnent idea that prevents edit warring over this is WP:BRD: Person "A" removes something, person "B" puts it back, and then we have a discussion.  If no one ever puts it back, it wasn't a controversial removal.  -- Jayron  32  05:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My own personal feeling is that it should be able to be removed without prior discussion, too, but the consensus at MedCab was that prior discussion was a good idea. I suppose, in the end, it all comes down to cases. Unscintillating produced a beautifully clear table on which to base any required discussion over here; I think a lot of people have the internal paradigm that BRD only really applies to the insertion of material, rather than the bold removal of it.  Maybe it should be made really clear, in that, that it applies to removals, as well?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 09:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a change to BRD based on Pesky's excellent idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources only reliable in their area
Where in the page is guidance about using a source only for what it is reliable for. For example. I've been told that the issue of how to spell a foreign name Frédéric Vitoux (for example) should be decided by WP:SOURCES. But if I look for Frédéric Vitoux (writer) I will get an accurate source on how to spell his name, but if I look for Frédéric Vitoux (tennis) I will get an accurate source on how many matches he played, but the name is inaccurate. What in this WP guideline tells me to look at Frédéric Vitoux (writer) to know the spelling of Frédéric Vitoux (tennis)? Or 1001 other examples that aren't about names? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh do you have other reliable sources that show there is an error? The tennis article itself says his professional name is "Frederic Vitoux" and there are regional and temporal variations in names.  For example, my late mother was part of the Waite (as in Morrison Waite) family but that name has several variants: Waitte, Wait, Waitt, and so on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bruce, sorry you clicked through and found that nonsense, please ignore that, that wasn't the point of the example. That "known professionally as [diacritics removed]" should have a tag after it since the ref is "Frédéric Vitoux : Union nationale des joueurs professionnels de tennis (UNJPT)". The line has been edited out or tagged in 100x tennis BLPs, but keeps reappearing and the  tag disappearing. That wasn't my point. I'm simply comparing 2 French people with the same name, one a sportsman (poor sources) one a writer (good sources). In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that you are comparing like with like - Morrison Waite himself was a nineteenth century public figure and Frederic Vitoux a twenty-first century public figure. In the nineteenth century (and earlier), officials did not always ascertain the "correct" spelling of a persons name (whatever we mean by that) - illiterates did not know (or maybe even care) about the "correct" spelling. Even literates were not that concerned - I understand that even William Shakespeare was inconsistent in the way that he spelt his name. Martinvl (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The English language is notoriously inconsistent... this is especially true when it comes to spelling non-English names. English language sources often leave out accent marks that are included in non-English language sources... this isn't "wrong" or "incorrect", it's just a different spelling standard.
 * The important thing is that whichever variation we choose, we should create redirects using the other alternatives... and prominently note those alternatives (usually done in the very first sentence of the article), so readers who are expecting to find it spelled in using another variation know they have arrived at the correct article. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, sorry please forget names my bad - I realise that English speakers are notoriously inconsistent; think of another subject: Where in the page is guidance about using a source only for what it is reliable for? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is perhaps the largest gaping hole in wp;ver. We need metrics that include knowledge and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it.   And the hole works both ways.  Many sources that don't meet the "wp:rs" criteria are very reliable on the items which cited them.  But wikilawyer  POV warriors who want the material gone can attack the source anyway to knock the material out. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So there is no guidance about using a source only for what it is reliable for? That at least explains why I couldn't find it.... In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see the content guideline WP:Identifying reliable sources. Some key points related to inaccuracy are summarized in an appendix at the essay WP:Inaccuracy.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm familiar with the first, in my view it doesn't clearly state that sources are only reliable in their area. An editor who believes (example above simply because it's on my mind at the moment and too lazy to think back to earlier) that Tiddlywinks Quarterly is an au ·thor·i·ta·tive. (ə-ˈthär-ə-ˌtā-tiv) guide to the surnames of Lithuanian tiddlywinks champions will look at WP:IRS and be none the wiser. Wikipedia:Inaccuracy I hadn't seen. Interesting. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The particular dispute is probably only going to be resolved when people start getting blocked for slow-motion and pointy edit warring, but the answer to the stated question is "in the second sentence of the introduction", which requires sources to be "appropriate". It is not appropriate, for example, to determine the spelling of Person A's name by looking at sources that do not mention Person A even once.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A less Herculean proposal
The proposal for a section about accuracy seems to have both serious support and serious opposition. I agree with Blueboar's comment that both sides in this discussion have valid points.

I also think there is actually quite a lot of common ground. E.g. I don't think anyone really wants to stop statements like "Dewey defeats Truman" from getting mentioned in WP, and I don't think anyone really wants a statement like that to be placed on a par with the proposition that Truman won the election against Dewey.

How to begin to address the concerns both of people who have supported an accuracy section and people who have opposed one?

A point made by a number of people, is that many if not all of the concerns of people who want an accuracy section can be addressed through WP:NPOV and its section on due weight. Well, there is already a section in the WP:V policy about how verifiability relates to NPOV. Perhaps that section can be expanded a little?

Here is my suggestion:

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC) Format tweak, bold instead of itals for changes. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but this seems to relate more to WP:NPOV, and not to verifiability. In fact, WP:RS/AC clearly addresses the issue of academic consensus, etc. And the explicit requirement for the use of the type of "weight meter" mentioned here will result in confusion, unless there are specifically calibrated devices for that purpose. It seems to me that the existing policies already cover these issues and adding any more will unnecessarily complicate matters. History2007 (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you suggest another better way to begin to address the concerns of both sides in the discussion about an accuracy section? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Both verifiability and "no original research" are ultimately policies detailing the way to comply with the Neutrality pillar, so they aren't really different things. I largely agree with the text above as a way to clarify existing policy. I don't think it introduces anything new, except the emphasis in weighting sources; but then that's already included in WP:DUE since "the prominence of each viewpoint" must be evaluated according to existing sources. Expanding this weighing of sources could be done in a similar way to how Notability is evaluated. Diego (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I like this better than any of the earlier proposals. I think it appropriately clarifies the interaction between relevant policies. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, I can only agree with the part about this not having anything new. There are problems there:


 * Wikipedia's voice is not defined, and at some point should be somewhere


 * The link to WP:WEIGHT does not apply in this context as a "weight meter" of sorts for evaluating one WP:RS book published by one publisher vs another.


 * The issue of WP:RS/AC seems to be ignored. That is a well written and key policy.


 * The issue of "error" discussed below has not been addressed. Attempts at defining error will in the end lead to a definition of the T-word as stated below.


 * I think there need not be an attempt at modifying policy for the sake of making it less Herculean . Maybe Hercules deserves a rest. History2007 (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Responding to points made by History2007
 * "Wikipedia's voice" is not a new term. The core policy WP:NPOV says that uncontested factual assertions should be stated "in Wikipedia's voice", while opinions should not be. The meaning is apparent from the examples given there.
 * I agree that weight is not about evaluating one RS against another. The proposal talks about "sources", plural. It also links to the existing policy where weight is explained.
 * I agree that WP:RS/AC is well worded. Although, it's actually a guideline rather than a policy. But do you see it as contradicting what WP:NPOV says about need to distinguish between majority views, significant minority views, and those held by a very small minority only?
 * This proposal doesn't contain the word "error". Why should it define a term it doesn't use? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

So point by point:


 * * "Wikipedia's voice" is used in WP:NPOV but has no definition there, and needs a link and clear statement in any case. A first time reader can not be expected to know which page to look at find it.


 * I am still not happy with the use of the WP:WEIGHT as some type of measuring device. Again, looking at Saltwater and freshwater economics if 70% are salt water, does that give them more than "roughly equal weight"? Will saltwater become the definition of accepted economic policy? That type of "weight meter" seems to be a problem in many, many cases, economics being a good example where hard and sciences collide.


 * WP:RS/AC is a very useful guide for determining the status of modern scholarship. Indeed it deserves to be restated within a policy page, rather than overshadowed by it elsewhere. I have often found WP:RS/AC to be the approach to use for dealing with summary statements by scholars who have surveyed the field. And therein lies the difference: When professor X surveys the field and says "most economists believe A" that has the advantage of having been surveyed by an expert. Any (and I mean any) attempt at allowing Wikipedia editors to use their own surveying methods to determine if "most economists believe A" rather than the WP:RS/AC approach is an invitation to disaster. Wikipedia editors at large can not be expected to know the breadth of the field to survey it and determine what the WP:RS/AC approach determines. That is a really fundamental problem that should be avoided. It will be a serious pitfall to allow editors to perform literature surveys outside the WP:RS/AC approach.


 * I mentioned error, because in the section below, it was cited as a key issue in these proposals. This does avoid the term error, however, as you said.

The other issue is that some of this is just too obviously covered by others e.g.


 * "All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." not a restatement of existing policy? Is there something new about "NPOV must be followed"?


 * Is "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view; indeed many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to present what the reliable sources say." Is this really a part of NPOV rather than WP:V? What does it have to do with verifiability? It seems to be about neutrality.

So beside those two, the middle portion is what remains, and that has the problems I mentioned above about salt/freshwater issues and the fundamental WP:RS/AC issue. History2007 (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You have misunderstood how my proposal compares to the current WP:V policy page. The two paragraphs you've criticised as "just too obviously covered by others" are actually in this policy page already! I included them in the box above simply to give context. If you really think they are not appropriate to be on this policy page, please propose a change to take them out! I will think further about your other points and make another posting soon.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought that all sounded familiar... That was why I said nothing new. So what is new here, just the middle part that uses weights? In any case, the WP:RS/AC issue still remains. History2007 (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Basically yes, it is just the middle part that is new, and not all of that. The new bits are in bold.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, so my comment remains that the two other parts are not really new, and the middle part problems were discussed at length just above. History2007 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It is intentional that there is not much new in this proposal. That is what I meant be describing it as "less Herculean".


 * I made the proposal because WP:V
 * already mentions in the intro that the 3 core policies, WP:V, NOR and NPOV work together to determine content.
 * already has a short section re neutrality and due weight,


 * I thought it would help clarity to say just a sentence or two here about how WP:V and WP:NPOV work together to determine content -- WP:WEIGHT being an integral part of WP:NPOV.


 * You've said that WP:WEIGHT should not be used like a measuring device. OK. How do you think WP:WEIGHT should be used? Or are you suggesting that it shouldn't be used at all?


 * Re: "Wikipedia's voice". An example would be if a WP article contained the statement (without quote marks): The Earth is in orbit around the Sun. This would still be an instance of "Wikipedia's voice" even if supported by a citation in a footnote. It is different from in-text attribution, an example of which would be: Smith argues that the star Proxima C. is in orbit around Alpha C., but Jones maintains the two stars are gravitationally independent. Perhaps examples like this should be included on the page, or in a footnote about footnotes.


 * Re: Saltwater/Freshwater. My reading of WP:WEIGHT is this... Given that there are two major schools of economic theory, both must be mentioned, and their key arguments fairly presented. Wikipedia can't endorse or reject either school, because that would violate neutrality. On the other hand, it should pay somewhat more attention to the majority view than to the minority one. Because the aim (as the policy states) is to present views "in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject".


 * To do this, logically you need to have some idea which view actually is the majority view... Another question you've raised is whether WP editors do this by surveying the literature themselves, or do they do it by looking for an expert who says something like "the current majority view among economists is..." ?


 * You don't think Wikipedia editors should do their own literature surveys, and probably you're right... Better to rely on the experts... Yet even experts can occasionally overstate the extent to which their colleagues agree with them, so should we perhaps look at what a range of experts say about were the majority is? In which case we are again doing a sort of literature survey of our own...


 * Interesting as these questions are, the fact remains that right now, WP:WEIGHT is an integral part of WP:NPOV, which is a core policy. As such, it is applicable to all information in mainspace, whether the information is backed by a citation or not.


 * And yet I have seen cases where a WP editor puts in citation-backed information, and then gets surprised, frustrated and disconcerted when another editor raises issues about due weight. This is the sort of misunderstanding I'd like to avoid. That is where my proposal is coming from.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that it's important to address a comment that Kalidasa 777 made, when they said "I don't think anyone really wants to stop statements like "Dewey defeats Truman" from getting mentioned in WP"  I think that not only was that statement in error, but that it would cause us to ignore what is probably the most common type of protracted problem.  To carry that example further, there are both Dewey lovers  and Truman haters would would like having that statement in there, wikilawyer to keep it in, and who would refuse to discuss whether it is true or false, say that editors are not allowed to discuss whether it is true or false, and would say that it is not the editors job or purview to judge what wp:reliable sources say. North8000 (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are saying that certain people want to present "Dewey defeats Truman", not just as a quote from a headline, but as a plain statement? I wonder... Still, if you're right, North, doesn't drawing more attention to WP:WEIGHT offer a way of countering them? How does the weight of a single newspaper report compare to all the other sources, include later reports in the same newspaper, that say the opposite? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I've had a new idea for a proposal with the same intent as this one, but without some of the wording issues, e.g. how to define "Wikipedia's voice". See the new section below, with the heading "Small expansion of existing section 'neutrality'". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait a second: how is "Wikipedia's voice" undefined? Writer's voice isn't any kind of Wikipedia specific terminology (incidentally, our Writer's voice article really sucks). This is the kind of wonkery that happens when these policy things are over thought (which is what's driving this entire discussion, by the way). — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 23:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look, I thought, myself, that the meaning of "Wikipedia's voice" was clear enough, which was why I included those words in the draft at the top of this thread. However, History2007 saw a problem with using those words without defining them. If the meaning is not self-evident to History2007, probably there are lots of other people to whom it will not be self-evident either.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem there though, is that this train of thought can (and too often is) be taken on just about anything in policy. There have been people adding specific definitions of words in policy for a couple of years now. Nobody used to worry about this kind of thing because... well, frankly, it doesn't matter, but there is definitely a subset of "policy wonks" who have recently decided to try making policy more like legislation (sorry, but someone's gotta speak frankly about this stuff at some point). In general, we should be going in the opposite direction (meaning, simplifying policies). So, my point is simply this: let's get away from defining things that can be linked. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 01:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree we should be going in the direction of simplifying policies. That's why in the proposal below (under the heading "Small expansion of existing section 'neutrality'") I have neither defined "Wikipedia's voice" nor left it undefined. I just didn't use it. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the Verifiability policy say anything regarding errors in reliable sources?
Seems like this is the question that needs to be decided before any work is done on this, or proposals considered.

Should the Verifiability policy say anything regarding errors in reliable sources?

--Bob K31416 (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments


 * Please define "error". History2007 (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be part of this discussion. How would you define it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition would ultimately lead to an attempted definition of the T-word... These issues have been discussed in formal logic for years, truth, provability, satisfaction, etc. Not a trivial issue, and probably not one to be replayed. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and if we rely on "tiny minority" in UNDUE to gauge inclusion or not, we don't need to bother trying to come to a consensus on what is accurate or true--we simply describe what everything else treats as correct. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the conclusion from that, i.e. current policy seems to handle it. History2007 (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, a very useful subset of that would be that if, in the discussions, a case is made that it is inaccurate, and NO editor asserts that it is accurate, it should not get used. While this may seem obvious, it would help a great deal. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There are times when otherwise reliable sources make statements which are later found to be unsupportable, or errors. Also, some sensationalist sources make statements which have little if any support as well, though they might otherwise qualify as RS's. Something regarding the matter in general would be quite useful. John Carter (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Does "should not get used" mean "should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice", or does it mean "should not be mentioned at all"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually the package "unsupportable, or errors" in John's statement is not uniform. Unsupportable may mean via reasoning/inference/evaluation, while "error" implies a deviation from some concept of "truth" - the term to avoid, of course. History2007 (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To answer the question, WP:V is silent on the issue of truth, "or errors in reliable sources". Perhaps it needs to be explicit that it is silent.  Somehow two opposing forces rally in support of keeping WP:V ambiguous about the silence.  These two groups are (1) those that consider reliable sources to be a "good-enough" or a sufficient source of truth, and (2) people concluding that because WP:V is deliberately silent on truth, editors throughout Wikipedia should be deliberately silent, or silenced, on the issue of truth.  Both groups appeal to expediency, sometimes with hyperbole, regarding the costs in a world in which Wikipedia editors freely discuss the accuracy of sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually my concern has not been the silence of WP:V on truth, but the observation that WP:V has worked so very well so far. Wikipedia is far from the Ministry of Truth, and it has worked so well so far. It is in fact impressive how well WP:V has worked. History2007 (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Unscintillating is arguing a tautology however: How does one decide if a source is reliable or not? Sources which have a reputation to be trusted to report the world as it is, accurately are considered reliable.  If saying truth bothers you, fine, don't use that word.  But the concept of using reliable sources (and of not using unreliable sources) is problematic when we need to know by what standard a source is considered reliable.  I know that, to a first approximation, we don't actually make that judgement ourselves; we consider reliable sources which have a reputation for reliability, but upon what does that reputation rest?  It rests on the source being trusted to be accurate, by the "world-at-large", and thus also by Wikipedia.  We cannot ignore the difference between accuracy and inaccuracy (i.e. on information being correct or wrong) in one breath, and then demand that reliable sources are distinct from unreliable ones on the basis of the source's ability to make that same judgement.  If we can't say that actual facts exist, and that errors exist, how can we say which sources are to be trusted enough to use as the basis for information at Wikipedia?  Logical positivism aside, this is a matter of pragmatic concern: Unscintillating seems to be saying that we should not be placing values on what reliable sources say, but we place that same value when we accept them as reliable in the first place.  If a source says something which is demonstratably wrong, it isn't reliable for reporting that idea, and thus that information from that source should be discounted.  It is as simple as that.  -- Jayron  32  05:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Several things here

@History2007: as demonstrated by my self and several other editors there seems to be a new bread of editor coming to Wikipedia. For this new breed of editor Verifiability is truth and they will claim if you have a source that conflicts with their it is somehow unreliable and throw out OR, SYN, DUE or anything other policy they can latch on to basically ignore there is a conflict usually to the detriment of WP:NPOV. The really sad part is sometimes their supposed reliable source isn't. (see Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 and my Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2 as well as IMHO somewhat POV pushing borderline delusional twaddle that tried to refute the points I brought up for a piece of THAT nonsense--the repeated claim that clearly SPS source wasn't was particularly aggravating).

The amount of effort and time spent in dealing some of the nonsense I and several other editors had to endure regarding articles such as Rorschach test, Multi-level marketing, and Weston Price shows that WP:V is in serious need of improvement.

@Jayron32 "demonstratably wrong" is a rarity and many claims are POV based. That was the whole point Horace Miner's famous 1955 "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" article--if you let your preassumptions drive your information gathering and interpretations you will find exactly what you were looking for.

For example, one of the problems with the Focal infection theory article is that the definition for FIT was ridiculously broad (a local infection affecting a small area of the body can lead to subsequent infections or symptoms in other parts of the body due either to the spread of the infectious agent itself or toxins produced from it). Under that definition uberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps[19] as well as conditions idiopathic scrotal gangrene[. angioneurotic edema, and untreated tooth abscess would qualify as examples of FIT. This would make 2002 Ingle's Endodontics 5th edition claim of "(i)n the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection" demonstrably wrong--until you realize that it is presenting the version Meinig had rather than the one that Price was actually using so you have a GIGO situation with this source. It wasn't "demonstratably wrong" per say in that the material it used as the basis was presenting a flawed picture.

GIGO is the problem with the Weston Price article as modern sources are using how others like Meinig have presented Price's work rather than going back to what Price himself wrote. As a result older works rather than newer ones are more accurate regarding Price.

is a better way to handle things IMHO.

1) It points out that Verifiable sources can conflict but that conflicts are more likely POV then any of the source being "wrong"

2) It direct readers to the relevant polices and their notice board on how the handle these conflicts

3) Finally it set forth that you must provide reliable sources to argue that a source is factually inaccurate in the talk page (per discussion. You don't discuss things on the article page.)

If anybody has a better Idea let's hear it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A "thank you" and a "more power to you" to you and everyone trying to tackle this Hurclean task. Now, to nitpick, what if the error is a statement that is so implausible that no other source has addressed it? North8000 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The statement Bruce made "for this new breed of editor Verifiability is truth" and the text that follow it is tantamount to discarding the core of WP:V. Hence this suggestion is not just a new paragraph, but in effect a path to the abandonment of the core of WP:V - an issue that was the subject of a pretty substantial RFC and went the other way, based on the views of a large number of editors. If someone is unhappy with the result of the previous RFC, this is not the way to remedy it. History2007 (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "it set forth that you must provide reliable sources to argue that a source is factually inaccurate." - that is only if you want to argue inside the article that a source is wrong. In other words, if an artile says "Smith is wrong" then the article has to have a source for that. But no specific source is needed to remove something from an article, and editors on talk pages are most effective when they use both sources and their own understanding of the material of the article. WP:V does not apply to talk page discussions. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As a specific example, there are many crank papers that are clearly wrong, but nobody will bother to say that in print. So we cannot say in our article "this is a crank paper" or "this is wrong" but we can just remove the crank paper from the article entirely without needing any sources that say it's a crank paper. There is no way that this sort of editorial judgment can be eliminated. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Carl's point about the "set forth that" item. However, regarding total removal, WP:PRESERVE does come into play, as mentioned further above. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * @History2007 I don't understand your "tantamount to discarding the core of WP:V" claim. IRS which lays out how you determine what sources meet Verifiability has NOT been touched.  Heck, given the planned position of this "Source Conflict and Clear-cut inaccuracy" section you have to go through WP:BURDEN, WP:SOURCES, WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:NOTRS, WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:CIRCULAR, and WP:REDFLAG long BEFORE you would even get to it.


 * @Carl: Let's be real here.  Just how many crank papers are going to meet WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCES or not fall under WP:NOTRS or WP:SPS?  Darn few.


 * And for the few that do (such as K. Linde, N. Clausius, G. Ramirez, et al., "Are the﻿ Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843) they are crushed under WP:Weight ("Clinical Trials (2003-2007)) if not refuted by later studies (such as Linde, K, et al. Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6; Ernst E, et al. Meta﻿ -analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet. 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):366 and "The end of homoeopathy" The Lancet, Vol. 366 No. 9487 p 690. The﻿ Vol. 366 No. 9503 issue (Dec 27, 2005)


 * IMHO all you gave were a pathetic scare tactic strawmen who I have effectively made to watch a 24-hour Barney marathon before I finally put them out of its and our misery by setting them ablaze.


 * Give rational arguments again this change not scare tactic stuff that looks like the rantings of Joseph McCarthy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Considerations rather than prescriptive
One way to make this Herculean task less Herculean might be to lay out and acknowledge a few considerations rather than trying to be prescriptive. Such might be:


 * 1) Sometimes sources which meet Wikipedia's reliable source criteria provide information which is in error or is badly biased. Depending on circumstances, such material should often be left out, attributed or balanced.
 * 2) Various mechanisms exist to judge the situation and implement the solution. These include policies such as wp:nopv, editor discussions including input from editor's knowledge (note that this knowledge is being used to leave out material, NOT to override wp:ver to include  material), editor discretion, RFC's etc.
 * 3) There are a few special situations where policy mandates inclusion of questionable material. For example, wp:npov does so where there are significant opposing views.   Otherwise, the processes described under #2 are allowed to decide to leave out material.

North8000 (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but the current policy is brief and general. The process of adding "special provisions" to community norms in any community (online or otherwise) in the end generates documents as complex as the tax code. That is not the way Wikipedia editors can handle or interpret policy. History2007 (talk) 11:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is acknowledging and legitimizing the normal processes, not setting up new ones. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I do not see it that way, as I mentioned above. History2007 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really see how any of this helps us get rid of "threshold" or the toxic triad, North8000. We're getting diverted and bogged down in details, again.— S Marshall  T/C 11:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in my mind, this whole thing is a "side trip" that is not working on the main topic.  Probably a good side trip.  But I think that your point is that with this we've stopped working on the main topic.  Good point. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (RE: I don't really see how any of this helps us get rid of "threshold" or the toxic triad)... The goal (for the majority of us) is not to "get rid of" specific language... the goal is to clarify the policy re verifiable sources that are inaccurate. We know some people think that the best way to do this is to "get rid of" certain language... but (and this is important) we also know that others strongly disagree with this idea.
 * It should be clear by now that any proposals to "get rid of" language that so many people like will be rejected. So... the only route to consensus is to clarify the policy while retaining the language people want. Blueboar (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean "some people want". Actually the only route to consensus is to stop people stalling and filibustering.— S Marshall  T/C 19:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds way too much like: "The only route to consensus is for everyone to stop disagreeing with me". And while I suppose that is one route to consensus, it is far from the only one... nor is it a very realistic one.  A far more realistic route to consensus is for us to find the middle ground... to find a way to clarify the policy while retaining the language that a LOT of people want. Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We should develop the 4-5 proposals (including the old fall 2011 version), and then, in a sound way (that avoids splitting the "vote" problems), see what people think is best. This accuracy topic is great but a different topic that should not stop progress. North8000 (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I do think that the RFC led to a clear majority and I think that users should accept the will of the majority without further delay. There isn't going to be a consensus on this because users don't change their minds on the subject, so a majority vote is the way to break the deadlock.  However, Wikipedia's bizarre consensus rules permit infinite stalling and filibustering to prevent that from happening.— S Marshall  T/C 08:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Errors in sources — Summary 1
So far, one message (John Carter 23:58, 24 April 2012) has directly addressed the question at the beginning of the section. Other responses are unclear regarding answering the question. Feel free to add here your version of a summary of the discussion so far. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps I did not manage to make myself clear there, but as stated just below, error is the other side of the "coin of truth", truth being something that may be free of errors whatever they may be, and vice versa. History2007 (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The first step, and I think a useful step, would be to establish consensus that "The Verifiability policy is silent regarding errors in reliable sources". Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Errors in sources — continued 1
Should the Verifiability policy say anything regarding errors in reliable sources? --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As stated above, an attempt to define "error" will in the end lead to an attempt to make a definition of "truth". Hence that issue should be handled upfront as a question of "verifiability vs truth" rather couched in terms of the derivative concept error, as a deviation from some concept of truth. History2007 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand your point. Suggest using a dictionary's definition of error. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Well Wiktionary: "An accidental wrong action or a false statement not made deliberately" as the first item, then others. And as you see it includes the term "false" which then immediately leads to the T-word. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if I gave my answer to the question.


 * Yes — There should be guidance for cases: (1) where there is questionable material in a reliable source and (2) where an editor makes a questionable conclusion that material in a  reliable source is incorrect and should not be added to Wikipedia. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Circular definition loop: I am sorry but we are in the circular definition loop now. The term questionable is now appearing as a surrogate for "perceived error", etc. So until you define questionable, then we have the Indy500 loop around the issue. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Let's see what others have to say about it, or preferably how others answer the main question. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But you have not explained why questionable, perceived error, perceived truth etc. are not inherently linked. History2007 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, starting with the simplest case; of these three from an essay:


 * To discuss this we must dispose of a common red herring which confuses matters of opinion with matters of fact and from that argues "there is no such thing as accuracy/truth" To do that we must understand what the three cases are:


 * The metrics of a correct answer are agreed upon, but the answer is not agreed upon or known: E.g., "Where did Amelia Earhart's final flight end?" Another way to say this is that if full information were available, all reasonable parties would certainly agree.
 * The metrics of a correct answer are agreed on, and the answer is overwhelmingly considered to be known. (like at least 99% of people with good access to information agree)  Regarding metrics, for "Did the US land a man on the moon?" 99% would agree what "land a man on the moon" means,  and for  "Who won the 2010 Super Bowl?" 99% would agree what "win the Super Bowl" means.
 * The metrics of a correct answer are not agreed upon (how do you define "good" and "bad") nor is the answer. Example: "Is Obama a good or bad president?"


 * 1) 2 is the simplest case and a good one to deal with first, i.e. something where #2 is the case, and is determined to be factually wrong per the standard set in #2. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes - The policy should briefly outline the following: 1) Accuracy is a goal - we want the statements we write in our articles to be accurate. 2) We do this by basing what we write on reliable sources (an aspect of verifiability). 3) If we suspect that a source contains a factual error... we achieve accuracy by presenting the the information as a attributed opinion, and not as an accepted fact (after all, it is accurate that the source said it... even if what the source said is in error).  5) However, once we have done this, we must also assess how much WEIGHT to give that opinion (and that assessment may result in giving it no weight at all, thus omitting the opinion).  Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Again we need to make sure to explain there there is a world of difference between an actual factual error and different in POV.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Query, @ History2007. I've been reading and reading and re-reading through this, and I can;t seem to find any actual suggestions from you as to how to address what definitely is, in some cases, a problem.  I may have totally missed it, as I'm definitely not at my best, but (forgive me if I'm wrong), all I can find is no, no, no, no ... etc. Without any fresh argument, just "no", repeatedly.  Was I wrong?  Did you have a constructive, forward-moving suggestion which I have missed?  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have to agree with your assessment of History2007's posts.  So far all I have seen are implausible (not to mention impossible) Camel's_nose strawmans arguments that if anything IMHO more resemble the ravings of McCarthyism then any real or valid arguments.


 * Comment Unfortunately, we do have, in the general population of Wikipedia editors, a small proportion who seem to be inherently incapable of applying what is generally known as "common sense". For those editors, we need to have some kind of a guideline as to what to do with clear-cut inaccuracy in an otherwise-reliable source.  I'm talking about the kind of inaccuracy where it is readily apparent to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that, in terms of absolute fact (as opposed to philosophical wossnames), that a published source is, plain and simple, wrong about something.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Given I and several editors have provided evidence of such behavior WHY in the saniy do we even have to point this out AGAIN?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This kind of thing sounds reasonable, doesn't it? However, this is exactly the kind of thing that should be removed from the policy. I know that what I'm saying is a bit counter-intuitive, but bear with me for a second here. The problem is that when this kind of guidance it given the people who are "problems" (you know, the targets of such guidance) read the examples in such a way that the examples become all encompassing. In other words, by providing specifics the policy implies that anything not specifically mentioned is OK. I see it all the time any more, where people claim "but this isn't what the policy is talking about!", which all comes from the endless examples that people have been adding to policies and guidelines over the years. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;•&thinsp;Contribs) 19:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a Non sequitur (logic) as all the other core parts of WP:V are still untouched. If another major point of silliness can be eliminated when why shouldn't WP:V be improved?  Fuzzy wuzzy fear mongering Camel nosed claim of "of if we do this BAD things will happen" are not valid counter arguments.  We have a clear problem--so we try and FIX it not going "everything's fine" like that politician in Make mine Freedom.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that it's not eliminating anything, and actually adding to the problem. I realize that we don't agree, and I don't really expect convince you, but I hope that you're at least willing to listen to the concerns of others. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 19:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Re your comment "In other words, by providing specifics the policy implies that anything not specifically mentioned is OK." — Could you give more explanation about how that applies here? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)