Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011)

Can something "not true" be verifiable?
re: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"

I have an editor claiming that it doesn't have to be true as long as it is verifiable. He is using this position to defend an urban legend. Should the Project Page point out that if something is "not true", it is by definition "not verifiable"?

For reference, one of the footnotes for the article reads: Wales, Jimmy, "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." "I can NOT emphasize this enough." RB 66.217.117.125 (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you point us to the particular issue? It's difficult to make a call on this kind of question without seeing the context. But, yes, according to the policy, something that is verified in a reliable source yet not true according to our own knowledge can remain in place. One example I have at hand is the bell in the St. James Railway Station article. One source claims the bell was in place in the 1960s, and another that it was put in place as part of an art project in 1992. I was curious, so I contacted the artist and verified the latter. But to use that information to remove the first source would be original research. Although I think I am correct, I cannot be sure, and we follow what the sources say. So both sources remain. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We do make a distinction between verifiability and truth. In most cases the argument is focused more the other way, with someone arguing that something should be included because it is True, even when not verifiable.  Religious belief being the prime example: the blunt statement "Jesus is the Son of God" may or may not be True (depending on whether you are a Christian), but it isn't verifiable.  However, the argument can go the other way as well (That "Frodo Baggins destroyed the One Ring" is verifiable... it isn't "true"). Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that parallel will strike some as slightly odd. I think this is a better way to say it: That Jesus is the son of God is claimed to be true, but we can not confirm that it is true in an uncontroversial way, or in other words we can not verify it. That Frodo destroyed the ring is not claimed to be true by anyone at all, but it is truly part of a real story, and we can confirm that the claim that it is truly in that story in an uncontroversial way. Verification is a concept which makes no sense without a claim of truth also being implied, but it is that extra step of claims or descriptions which can be confirmed uncontroversially which make something verifiable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be easier to advise if we could see the example, 66.217. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 21:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Where there is a dispute the statements should be attributed, like according to Christians Jesus is the Son of God, or in the book Lord of the Rings Frodo Baggins destroyed the One Ring. Truth really doesn't come into it. Dmcq (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just logically, claims about the truth are always lurking in the background whenever something is called verifiable. That does not mean they are the same. However when we say something is verifiable we are saying that it is true, and we know it is true, that it is verifiable, which in turn means that 1, we know that it is true that 2, reliable people have been recorded as stating it is true 3, in ways which other people will generally find to be convincingly true. This is just me pointing out a side issue of logic, and not disagreeing with the principle of distinguishing truth and verifiability as criteria for inclusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are three links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sentence_spacing#Some_comments it's irrelevant if that statement you mentioned wasn't "true". Wikipedia represents verifiability, not truth. ... I disagree strongly about the relevance of whether a statement in Wikipedia is true ... According to one of Wikipedia's core policies, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sentence_spacing#Does_webword.com_qualify_as_an_.22External_Link.22.3F WP:ELNO states that "Links normally to be avoided" include: 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research... ... In the days of typewriter manuscripts the extra space was necessary to separate the ends and beginnings of sentences. No, we know from the "Sentence Spacing" article that people today submit single-sentence-spaced monospaced drafts to editors, so the extra space was a choice, never "necessary." ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sentence_spacing#.22Untitled_Document.22_is_not_a_reliable_source_WP:SOURCES_WP:QS ... The abstract itself contains information known to be factually incorrect, such as, "Two spaces were necessary to visually break up the space and reinforce the end of a sentence." ... 5. "Information known to be factually incorrect." We've discussed the irrelevancy of this assertion before (truth vs. verifiability).
 * RB 66.217.118.166 (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we agree that there is an ambiguity on the Project Page? RB 66.217.118.166 (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is definitely all verifiable in a conference abstract. If there is debate as to the accuracy of what is stated in the abstract, it should be attributed to the author (the main presenter of the talk). Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's just go for the obvious example, an entire and quite verifiable article about something we all know is false:: The Moon is made of green cheese. -- Ludwigs 2  04:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The common working definition "Verifiable" in Wikipedia is that it meets wp:ver. And that definition is that it is cited by what WP calls a "reliable source", which overweights certain criteria and completely skips others (such as objectivity and expertise). As so it would be quite easy for even an objectively false statement to meet the letter of WP:verifiability criteria.

But once it gets into further discussion / noticeboards, common sense and the oft-ignored higher level wording of wp:ver usually come into play including selecting those "Reliable Sources"  which are actually reliable. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Appeals to "common sense" on noticeboards may be less necessary with some rewording. Consider the following restatement of the sentence "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."


 * Wikipedia purposes to be a compendium of truth. However, 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. RB 66.217.118.17 (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia is not a "compendium of truth". It is a compendium of verifiable information.  It strives to present that information accurately... but "truth" has nothing to do with it. People can disagree as to what is "true"... they can not disagree as to whether something is verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly people can disagree about what is verifiable. Seems to happen a lot. The difference is relative. Verifiable statements are relatively uncontroversial statements about what is asserted to be true or not. Just using a Latin word for truth (VERI-tas) and putting a fancy abstracting ending on the end does not hide that. Verifiability instead of truth is a good way of aiming in a practical way at having truth in the encyclopedia, sorry I meant "correct information" or "high quality encyclopedic material" which of course have nothing to do with truth. :D --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We seem to go through this argument at regular intervals. I'm going to continue to take the very hardnosed viewpoint that we are not obligated to repeat the errors made by our sources. Reliability is not absolute and any specific statement is subject to refutation. In the case of the bell referred to above I personally would accept that someone checked with the artist in order to discern between conflicting sources. If a source says something that seems to be unreasonable I do not think we need a great deal of process to exclude the questionable statement; on the contrary, I would be disposed to exclude it lacking corroboration.

In terms of the purpose of an encyclopedia, I think it is as a rule better to say nothing at all than to repeat questionable claims. Mangoe (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone here see the ambiguity? I've added to one of my posts above to draw attention to a statement from an editor that he feels strongly about the misreading of WP:V. "I disagree strongly about the relevance of whether a statement in Wikipedia is true" RB  66.217.118.17 (talk) 18:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think our goal is to have everything to be "true," but it is impossible to agree on what that is - especially if someone is purposefully trying to include dubious material. We have chosen to go with "verifiable."  An editor can (and should) avoid including verifiable information they know is not true, but using "that's not true" cannot be used as the only reason to remove verifiable information that has another editor's good faith support.  --John (User:Jwy/talk) 18:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the high level mission statement of the Wikimedia Foundation requires truth, in those cases where objective truth exists ("truth" being better described as CORRECT (vs. wrong) INFORMATION where such objectively exists)  The statement out of policies (verifiability vs. truth) that people keep quoting is to emphasize that Wikipedia's means to the end of correct information is verifiability rather than debates about truth. IMHO the people who keep trying to reverse engineer a mission statement out of policy wording have it backwards. IMHO the higher level mission statement requires CORRECT information, and verifiability is (merely) a means to that end. North8000 (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "reverse engineering?" I do not see what you mean. i have been around a pretty long time and I do not think that Blueboar's 18:02 statement is in any way anachronistic or backwards.  That Wikipedia provides verifiable information, including verifiable views of information (including interpretations, arguments) has been Wikipedia policy for as long as I can remember.  My understanding of NPOV as it was originally formulated (and which used to include "V" before it became its own policy) was, when I first joined the project, the same as it is now (and as many people here quite patiently but repeatedly explain) is that under conditions where people do not agree about what the truth is, or how to assess the truth, it is better for an encyclopedia edited by "everyone" to sidestep the problem - and what is really a metaphysical or epistemological question - of "what is the truth?" entirely and claim to do something else.


 * The "something else" that we do goes hand in hand with our being a wiki project that anyone can edit, and it is that we provide verifiable views. What makes the view verifiable is nothing at all like what it would mean to make it "true" - talk about reverse engineering!  What makes it verifiable is that the source of the view can be identified, and if necessary relevant contextual information about the view can be provided.  In practice, if a view is uncontroversial (Mussolini was a fascist would be my example) then it can simply be added to the encyclopdia without a source or attribution.  If a view is controversial (fascism is socialism) then editors will say so and demand verification which usually involves providing a source; if the view is highly controversial then the source is often attributed in the articl.  This is also the case when editors acknowldge that there are multiple views.  If there are multiple views about whether Pluto is a planet, we put that.  If there are multiple views physicists hold about the measurement problm, or the structure of an atom, we provide that.


 * All of this fits together and makes perfect sense to me and to the best of my recollection this was the position Sanger and ales and most early Wikipedians accepted. The whole point was to avoid silly arguments over what is true and how do you know.  If you think I am being silly by calling these arguments silly, well,I can only answer that people interested in such debates should bcome philosophers or find a philosophy chat room, this is just not what Wikipedia is about.


 * The Jimbo quote at the start of this thread does not mean Wikipedia is about the truth. If Nazis think Jews are subhuman, we do not explude that from the encyclopedia because the claim is false, we include it because it is a verifiable view.  Jimbo's quote is clearly just a call to caution, that we should not add stuff to articles just because we thing articles are too short.  We add material as is apporpriate.  If most historians agree that the view I just provided is what Nazis think, but not informative about Jews, we put it in the Nazi article, not the Jew article.  These questions - multiple views or one, majority view or minority, what kind of view belongs in which article, reliable or unreliable source - are the questions that naturally follow from V and are the ones we should be discussing in writing articles, not "truth." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * SLR do you truly think the following sentences mean different things? Or would that assertion be not true in your opinion?
 * If Nazis think Jews are subhuman, we do not explude (sic) that from the encyclopedia because the claim is false, we include it because it is a verifiable view.
 * If Nazis think Jews are subhuman, we do not exclude that from the encyclopedia because the claim is false, we include it because it is true that it is a verifiable view.
 * If it is true that Nazis think Jews are subhuman, we do not exclude that from the encyclopedia because the claim is false, we include it because we can verify that it was truly their view.
 * If it is true that Nazis think Jews are subhuman, we do not exclude that from the encyclopedia because the claim is false, we include it because actually it is true, and we can verify the fact, that it was their view.
 * If it is true that Nazis thought it true that Jews are subhuman, we do not exclude that from the encyclopedia because the claim is false, we include it because actually it is true, and we can verify the fact, that it was their view.
 * etc. Just to make it clear, I fully support the truth/verifiability distinction in Wikipedia. There is a workable distinction, and it works well most often. But I just find it worthwhile to point out that the way some people explain the distinction is illogical and could lead to over-simplification and misunderstanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Heavens, this debate is interminable. The way I see it, this is very simple if you get away from the trees and look at the forest. start from general principles: 'Truth' is not a concern here at all except to the extent that the 'current understanding' of the topic reflects some greater truth. yes, In the sciences and scholarship more generally authors put a lot of effort into validating what they write, and good journalistic do a lot of fact-checking. but when we use these sources we are not offering these sources as though they represent validity or truth; from wikipedia's perspective they are merely the current understanding of the topic.
 * 1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such it aims to give a well-rounded descriptive overview of the current understanding of topics it covers.
 * 2) * let me highlight that phrase: A well-rounded descriptive overview of the current understanding of topics.
 * 3) The 'current understanding' of a topic includes past understandings (the way that a current understanding of you might include your previous occupations or the school you graduated from), and it includes critical, alternate, and competitive understandings (the way a current understanding of you might include the opinions of your boss, your ex-wife, or a co-worker who's competing for the same promotion), at least where such are significant enough to be mentioned.
 * 4) Well-rounded means that all these aspects should be included and balanced so that none are minimized or exploited. this is art more than science (or at least, those people who try to make rigid rules about it are almost always people with major axe-grinding issues).
 * 5) Descriptive is not proscriptive: an encyclopedia gives people information and leaves them to draw conclusions on their own.  if you find yourself trying trying to proscribe the way a reader should think about an issue then you are not writing encyclopedically.  This is subtle: people can impose proscriptive elements on an article through phrasing and word-choice, article structure, and all sorts of other non-obvious means.
 * 6) overview means that we do not try to get down into the down-and-dirty details of a topic, but aim to give a solid understanding that people can use to look further on their own.  excessive detail is almost always POV, though not necessarily in an obnoxious way.

the point of verifiability is that it is supposed to stabilize articles. without verification, an article just becomes a an opinion piece written by whatever wikipedia editors happen to edit it. sometimes that works out fine - with a knowledgable editor or two you can get a well-rounded descriptive overview even if the sourcing is crappy. but with difficult topics, or contentious ones, or polemical ones, sourcing is a stanchion that keeps the whole article from blowing over. Verifiability works like so: Editor Q wants to add a comment X into an article; editor P complains, editor Q shows source B where X is outlined; editor P verifies (i.e. reads) to make sure that X is being used in the source in the way that it is being presented in the article. verifiability binds statements made in wikipedia to statements made in the real world, so that (regardless of the truth of those statements), it is clear at least that the wikipedia editors in question aren't misrepresenting a concept or making material up out of whole cloth. If you try to turn verifiability into something more than a reality check (as people often do, when they confound verifiability with "reliability"), you just end up with a mess. -- Ludwigs 2 21:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A new example
In the article Euclid's Elements there appears the statement that "Perhaps no book other than the Bible can boast so many editions". This is sourced to an otherwise reputable book, and so is verifiable. It isn't difficult to demonstrate that it isn't true, the works of Homer being an obvious competitor, but that argument would count as WP:OR. As there is in general no obligation to include information just because it's there, it seems better to require both verifiability and truth. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what North8000 means about "reverse engineering", he means that my text proposal to insert "Wikipedia purposes to be a compendium of truth." is not correctly factored, a statement of what Wikipedia is is to be found elsewhere. This proposal is withdrawn by the author. RB  66.217.118.17 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You can always say - according to xyz that is true. A worse example I had a rather protracted discussion about was where someone read a widely respected maths textbook that had a wrong statement in it and wanted to include that in Wikipedia. Showing them examples where it was wrong and bringing in outside review saying it was wrong had little effect and they wanted to insert their own proof' where the original had just had it as a remark. This is the sort of reason common sense is supposed to be used with all the policies - but then of course it isn't that common unfortunately. Dmcq (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think in effect we refer to what we think is true in a negative way when we discuss/consider due weight, and whether to include something at all, or whatever. In the case of the example given I would say that there is no policy obliging us to include a statement that is clearly questionable. I would say that anyone arguing that it has to be included just because properly sourced has no policy to back them up on that (unless the quote were very famous and therefore notable) and it is purely a matter of editors needing to convince each other and try to reach a consensus. WP:V and WP:RS do not tell us that all verifiable and reliable materials must be included. Am I wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pluto is a planet"... this blunt statement is verifiable (I can cite reliable sources that say it)... but is this blunt statement true? Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (added later)This seems like not a good example, but I would argue that this is a case where objective/truth/accuracy does not exist. It is a question of "does humanity apply the noun "planet" to that thing out there beyond Neptune.  (of course the most widely recognized body's opinion recently changed on this). North8000 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not really a good example of the problem (at least as I am addressing it), especially since the changing status of Pluto is something that the article must address. When we have a selection of sources which testify to changing views about a topic, one can insist on the documentation of the shift. The biggest problem cases are where a "reliable" source says something that is just incorrect by any standard, as in the case Dmcq mentions. I had a case where a prominent person was stated in the course of an interview to have attended a particular school in Maryland. The interviewer simply made a mistake: the school in question had the same name as a different school in Delaware which the person in question had actually attended. It was physically impossible for her to have attended the school named in the interview. Yet I had people doggedly insisting that this falsehood had to be included in the article because the source was "reliable". To prevent us from repeating this false statement, I had to track down this person's high school yearbook and cite it. This struck me as extreme; the mere demonstration that the statement could not have been true should have been sufficient to exclude it from the article. Reliability is not a guarantee of accuracy, and we do have an obligation not to repeat material which we can tell is false even when it comes from "reliable" sources. Mangoe (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Mangoe is a diligent researcher, of the sort WP needs a LOT more of. I think she brings up a good point.  But I think the issue here is the triviality of the matter.  Editors working on an article need to be able to discuss how trivial or untrivial a point is.  The less trivial, the more important it is to research it carefully.  I think the challenge for WP is as WP is established as THE first choice encyclopedia on the web (and may even one day surpass EB as a resource people rely on), it becomes more and  ore important that even trivial claims are verified.  Mangoe is pointing out - quite correctly - that verifiaction involves more than finding a source.  I would say that the more trivial or less controversial a point is, the more often finding one source is an acceptable surrogate for verification.  As mangoe's case illustrates however,verification involves checking one source against others and a more careful consideration of the reliability of the source.  What mangoe did begs comparison to what fact-checkers at The New Yorker and other major publications do.  It is tedious and often descends into the trivial but it is necessary for the standards of the publication.  My point: we will increasingly have to hold P to this standard.  Mangoe, would you agree that the criteria required in your case include (1) consistency with other sources and (2) a criticl assessment of the authority of the source? If so perhaps these should be written into the policy.  I do think this kind of issue will become more and more important. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the case Mangoe mentions is not uncommon, and it sounds like the kind of case where WP:IAR, e.g. WP:UCS can be relevant. Very often of course editors on a page do not even bother arguing about it and just make a judgment call. (And whether we use the word "true" or not, such use of common sense can not be described without using reference to what believes to be true or false. Also, as in the case described, some basic level "synthesis" is also unavoidable for any normal editor.) In cases where WP:IAR actually needs to be invoked however, and then people notice common seen being used out in the open, there is a definite under-current of fundamentalism around which in effect treats WP:IAR as controversial. There are understandable reasons why of course. The fear is that everyone might start invoking common sense for whatever their favorite fringe theory is, and the world will come to an end etc. But according to WP:IAR, which still exists, such fear is a justifiable excuse to hurt the quality of articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I can come up with a principle that isn't going founder on the unspeakable need to have editors who are capable of making these kinds of judgement. I do think we should put more emphasis on respecting objections made against questionable statements. In the case I mentioned, the subject of the article would have had to commute 120-odd miles each way to get to school, because the Maryland school is on the opposite side of the bay from where she lived, and it doesn't have boarding students. It's "research" in some sense, I suppose, to work out that such a trip is impossibly impractical, but I guess I am less concerned about excluding statements from articles on this basis than I am in including something that's untrue. OTOH I recognize the likelihood that this will be used as a tactic in articles about atrocities to suppress evidence, but I think that those partisans can generally only be controlled by banning them.


 * It seems to me that we need two things here. First we need to find a better way to express that we want verifiable facts rather than reporting what we know than "verifiability, not truth". Second, we need to emphasize that fact-checking is necessary and important. I'm not sure how to word it but that's where it is. Mangoe (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. The current wordingis prone to misunderstanding and misquoting.   North8000 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am more inclined to oppose the change than to support it. It seems that the problem with verifiable but untrue statements is handled by WP:NPOV and its associated guidelines, like WP:BURDEN and WP:FRINGE. It looks like you are trying to turn Verifiability into a content policy that can be read in isolation of the other pillars. I think the "verifiability, not truth" language is essential in combating people who want something in the encyclopedia because the know it is true. To say the least, much of what people know is true represents a partial point of view, and is oftentimes downright false. Any problems caused by this wording can be addressed by pointing editors to the other policies and guidelines.  RJC  TalkContribs 20:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What that phrase really means is that verifiability is an absolute requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Nothing else (such as claims of truth) removes that requirement. WP:truth says the same thing.  If something meets that criteria, it will still need to meet other criteria to be included.  The "other criteria" might be WP policies or guidelines (e.g. NPOV, MOS ) or it might be other non-policy criteria that get applied by consensus or common sense (such as true/false, stupid/smart sounding, germane / not-germane to the article).
 * Both this phrase in wp:ver and also wp:truth overall are continuously misquoted, misapplied and misconstrued by even experienced editors to say that true/false, accurate/inaccurate doesn't matter in Wikipedia.  This leaves the impression that a statement is objectively false can't be used as grounds for excluding it as being a statement of fact.  WP:VER merely says that being "true" is not grounds for waiving the requirement for verifabilty.  IMHO the fact that the "verifiability is absolutely required" statement pollutes itself by including ONE PARTICULAR example of something (Truth) that does not waive the requirement is a mistake that has led to such frequent mis-interpretations and confusion. This is the reason for my support for some type of rewording. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a misuse at all. An objectively erroneous statement whose fallaciousness cannot be verified should not be removed because an editor knows in their heart or from long experience (which the community cannot verify) that it is just wrong. The whole point is to remind editors that what they think is irrelevant. We don't get to act on objective truth and falsehood, but only upon our opinions about objective truth and falsehood. Meanwhile, if we can verify that reliable sources claim that something is false, then we get into issues of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:FRINGE in deciding whether to include it.  RJC  TalkContribs 21:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. No matter how much this all gets turned over and over and over, the fundamental question is what happens when there is a disagreement about the accuracy of a statement. The answer is we look to reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just looking at reliable sources may or may not clear up the problem. In reality good discussion seems to be the most important thing in many real cases. We can all wish that the world were simpler, but discussion is indefensible on WP. A lot of problems WP has to handle can not be handled any other way. I think the biggest concern I have about how policies are written is when they seem to be trying to legislate decisions which really require discussion between good faith editors. The bias should be towards anything which pushes people towards proper discussions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and arguing that something is true, and therefore should be included even though there is not support by verification in reliable sources does not move us toward good discussions, in my opinion, since those discussion will be marred by appeals to authority and expertise, what someone told me, what I heard or read somewhere, etc. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a mis-statement of the discussion, I don't think that anybody is advocating waiving the verifiability requirement under any conditions. North8000 (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Responding to RJC above, so you are saying that by consensus, editors can remove a statement for being POV, for violating MOS, for going against specialized guidelines of the various subject groups, for being non-germane, or for being just badly badly written, for being non-encyclopedic style, but NOT for being objectively false ? ! North8000 (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP does not have to include everything which can be sourced, so of course deletions can be proposed for various reasons. One kind of case where deletions are not easy to defend is where something is well-known of notable, and therefore a part of what is said about a subject in the relevant field or fields. In such cases mention of a source is in my opinion necessary, but this can be done using attribution etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer you give, Nuujinn, begs the question. Reliability is not a guarantee of utter accuracy, and there are other tests of accuracy besides the authority of sources. A statement that is incorrect should not appear in this encyclopedia; judging between conflicting sources should not be done merely by majority vote. There is a requirement for personal judgement in these cases. That is also the problem, RJC, with your your analysis. I can determine that some statements are erroneous without have to to refer to a conflicting witness. In the case I mentioned, I didn't need a conflicting source to know that the interviewer's statement was wrong; I could simply work out that it was physically impossible for her to have attended that school. And other editors should have walked through the same reasoning and agreed that the statement was incorrect, instead of defending it with the dogma that the source as reliable even though it has been proven that in this case it was not.


 * I want to be clear that this isn't about including unverified information; it is strictly about excluding statements which can be shown, by whatever means, to be inaccurate. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, nothing is a guarantee of utter accuracy. I have been pulled into discussion on both sides of the type of argument you are discussing. My own way of drawing a line is by looking at WP:NEUTRAL and WP:NOTE. If material which appears wrong but properly sourced is well-known and part of what really gets discussed about a subject then it is difficult to justify deleting all mention of it, and it becomes a question of working out how to describe it in a fair and realistic way. Attribution often helps, by notifying any alert reader that there might be more to the question. But removing well-known information can make Wikipedia take a position different from the mainstream and it will also make it difficult for users of Wikipedia to find information they might have heard elsewhere. If it is not notable, then there is no reason to include dubious materials just because they can be sourced, and then it becomes a content discussion for editors of the article. I think in both the types of cases I describe there will always be judgement and discussion required, and there is no possibility to write a standardized rule that will work in all cases?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My exchange above was on structural wording issue; I was essentially saying that wp:ver provide a requirement, not a mandate for inclusion. And that a common misreading of wp:ver and wp:truth is to say that they say that accuracy doesn't matter in WP.North8000 (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not surprising or even rare that something objectively false can be "reliably sourced" in accordance with the basic WP definition of RS'ing. One pervasive example is when a RS covers false or baseless assertions made by somebody else. Those false or baseless assertions then become "reliably sourced" per WP criteria.  Another is when a WP:RS makes a mistake....nobody is perfect. Another is old sources with info which was correct then and wrong now.   North8000 (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that the wording of WP:V should make clear that the rule is not a self-contained rule about what must be included but should be used in conjunction with other rules? I have nothing against the idea but such cross referencing reminders need to be short and sweet or otherwise the text can become encumbered and hard to get the gist of. Do you have a concrete proposal though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's even simpler than that. It just needs cleanup of wp:ver wording so that it doesn't confuse people about what it is about. For example, the ambiguous "threshold" word, and confusion of the core policy statement by inclusion of an example (truth) in it's core of core wording. For example (quickie, needs refining)


 * Replace:
 * "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."


 * with:
 * A requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability - whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Nothing else (such as whether or not editors think it is true)is a substitute for fulfillment of this requirement. North8000 (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * At first sight that seems more clear. It also helps me see what you wanted to clarify.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How to discuss "truth"
I think that the phrase, "verifiability, not truth," should be preserved. While "truth" is technically one example of the justifications that do not satisfy the minimum threshold for inclusion, it is the most important. I think the policy should be worded in such a way that editors on the right side of a dispute can point to it and have it be immediately comprehensible to a new user. Having "verifiability, not truth" in big bold letters in the first sentence gets the point across. The proposed wording that pushes "truth" into a parenthetical remark says the same thing in a technical sense, but it is less forceful and hence less effective in communicating the policy.  RJC  TalkContribs 18:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree the longstanding text does not need changing, as a defender in previous battles. Objections usually arise from misunderstanding the categories involved. If "A" is a disputed proposition, whether it's "true" or not, we don't include it: we refer editors to say instead, "B says A". The fact is that in these cases "B says A" is a "true" and verifiable statement, and since it is undisputed it is a different category of "truth" (undisputed) than the category of disputed "truths" (like "A"). The occasional dispute over "B says A" does arise, and we do sometimes use a form of "C says B says A", but usually the dispute doesn't go much further back unless it is an entrenched community-discussion issue and other standards are invoked. WP's disdain for "truth" is that people so often use it to refer to disputed statements; the fact that it's also used for undisputed statements does not vitiate the validity of our formulation. When Jimbo objects to including "false" information, the criterion is exactly the same: we should not include disputed "falsities" any more than disputed "truths" (undisputed "falsities" are, of course, a different category and are unverifiable by definition because no reliable sources say them). JJB 20:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is too simple. A problem arises when generally reliable sources make mistakes, as they do. Those mistakes may never be publicly identified as such, because other experts just tacitly dismiss them and have little motivation to point them out. If the mistake then gets incorporated into Wikipedia, those who recognise the mistake should be able to delete it (not say the opposite, just pass over the matter in silence). Occasionally other editors insist on unconditionally retaining such mistakes even when it's clear that that's what they are. There are a few examples mentioned on this page. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Under these circumstances, there would usually be contradicting source that would be required to remove the "false" material, wouldn't there?
 * Also, an advantage of the "Verifiability, not truth" phrasing is that it is rhetorically shocking and flags the policy as not what one might initially expect it to be: that attention must be paid. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 00:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe there would "usually" be a contradicting source, but often there isn't. The more arbitrary the original statement, the less likely it is that someone made a reverse one, except when explicitly reviewing the orginal one. The problem tends to arise over issues that aren't in fact seen as terribly important, where someone makes an idle ill-informed statement and nobody takes much notice. Nevertheless such statements get repeated into wikipedia and editors insist on retaining them. Look again at some of the examples quote above:
 * search for "school in Maryland"
 * search for "Euclid's Elements"
 * search for "widely respected maths textbook"
 * It isn't wikipedia policy to require sourcing for deletion, not should it become so.
 * And policy statements don't want to be "rhetorically shocking" - they want to be clear. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Not workable, because what is true must somehow be determined, and determining that is harder than determining what can be verified in reliable sources.
 * A)So there a bit that's wrong and cited. You know it's wrong, and delete it. At that point either the change isn't noticed, in which case nothing happens, or someone spots it. But let's say I'm hunting vandals and spot your deletion. I revert you and am hopefully polite, and discussion ensures. I will require sources, and we either do or not not come to consensus, and if not, move up the chain until the matter is settled.
 * B)So there a bit that's wrong and cited. I'm a vandal and delete it. At that point either the change isn't noticed, in which case nothing happens, or someone spots it. But let's say you're hunting vandals and spot my deletion. You revert me and are certainly polite. I argue it's wrong, and at that point you requires sources, and we either do or not not come to consensus, and if not, move up the chain until the matter is settled.
 * The two case are parallel. We must turn to discussion of reliable sources to resolve either scenario. And yes, mistakes can and are made, but no policy can preclude mistakes, precisely because they must be interpreted. If a reliable source makes a mistake that is represented here, the only way to deal with that problem is to find more (in quantity or quality) sources and then evaluate the whole lot of them. What is clear to me on one day is a brick wall to you on others, and sometime mud to me on another day, and anyone can delete anything they want at any time. The question is not what can we alter, but what can we alter and have stick, and the way things stick is by being accepted by consensus. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had to work on some controversial genetics related articles where the science changes quickly, is not frequently criticized in print, and also gets peoples passions up (because of supposed possibilities to link genetics to the study of ethnicity). While we can never aim to get rid of all debate by making the perfect policies, I have to say that policies such as WP:NEUTRAL as they are currently written are a very good help in such cases. I agree that while it is true that it can be a problem on Wikipedia when an old source becomes obviously out-dated, I also see nothing stopping us from giving more weight to newer sources. If the out dated sources are still notable we tend to need to still cite them, perhaps (if editors agree it is necessary) adding context such as "In 1990, Smith proposed X. Mainstream thinking since article Z of 2005 is Y." If Smith is not even notable any more then we do not even really need to mention Smith.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with all of that, and that's the kind of issue that gets resolved not with WP:V, but with WP:RS, under which editors reach consensus as to which sources are more reliable than others. Note that there are subsections and guidelines and essays which contend that different subject areas use different criteria for weighing the reliability of sources. If you feel that in the areas of scientific research, current policy allows for inappropriate weight for outdated sources, we could work on that, but not, I think, here. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In my experience WP:NOTE and WP:NEUTRAL are very helpful for discussions about such cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree... the WP:UNDUE section of WP:NEUTRAL is very helpful in these types of discussions (we don't wnat to give outdated sources undue weight). Blueboar (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nuujinn, here's what actually happened in the school case: there was a tremendous flurry about a (in my opinion dumb) controversy in the midst of which someone else changed the school. People noticed and the issue was discussed. The problem was that we had contradictory flat statements from the (incorrect) interview and from a (correct) fansite, the latter of which we all agreed wasn't good enough. We also found a number of passing remarks, none of which flatly stated that she went to the Delaware school, but all of which had some inconsistency with the Maryland one. We discussed this and there was definitely consensus that the Maryland school couldn't be correct. I was willing to remove any reference to where she went to school, because the one (correct) statement couldn't be properly sourced, and the one flatly stated "reliable" source was clearly wrong, being inconsistent with other solid statements we had. But someone absolutely resisted removing the wrong statement, solely because it was flatly stated in a "reliable" source. They would only accept a flat statement from another "reliable" source. (And even at that I got resistance to using her school yearbook as a source, though I'm somewhat surprised that nobody attacked it for being a primary source.)

It's easy to see how this could come out as a bigger problem with a WP:BLP: in this case the error was somewhat innocent, but that was a matter of luck. We could get into a fight (and probably have) where a "reliable" source says something negative that's also wrong, but we have trouble getting the statement removed because the sourcing we find, while circumstantially showing that the statement is incorrect, doesn't flatly state that it is wrong. This overstatement is consistently producing the interpretation that erroneous statements trump evidence that they are wrong if the evidence requires any interpretation. My dogma is that if there is a consensus that a statement is erroneous, it should be not be included in the text, even if that consensus is based on analysis of other sources rather than upon flatly opposing statements. Mangoe (talk) 11:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just my two cents on the example. I think looking over the wording and spirit of policies would suggest the school should not have been mentioned. A possible fudge which might have been acceptable would be to name the school, but deliberately leave ambiguity in about which school of that name it was?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In general with sources in apparent error, it's usually a very simple matter, not worth arguing about, to write a formulation that leaves the reader with the full appreciation of the facts on the ground but does not create an original synthesis. E.g., "X School (in Delaware according to its yearbook[1], but placed by Y in Maryland[2])". This is even better if you can wikilink to two "X School" articles. Or, "considered by W to have the most editions of any book besides the Bible (see List of books by number of editions)." (There are other solutions than going to the work of populating the redlink, of course.) The only reason a discussion gets heated is if editors get confused about WP's mission, which is emphatically not to determine "correctness" or "truth" of sources, but to collect what they say for readers to judge. JJB 22:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly my thinking. In the St. James Railway article I've mentioned, I decided that I could not use the email I obtained from the artist since that would be OR, so I linked each assertion about the origin of the bell to each of the sources I had, and left it to the reader to research the matter further. There's nothing wrong with that approach. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to lose hope in these discussions as people repeatedly lose grip of the specifics of the cases in question. When it came to "which school", the school's own publications are manifestly better sources than a mere interviewer, so there is really no serious question as to which source is to be given priority, especially since there were also other sources whose testimony favored Delaware. And once other people actually looked at the yearbook the issue ceased to be seriously contested (modulo an irrelevant quibble about the school website). And that is the way it should remain; not all sources are created equal, and we are empowered to judge one against another.


 * But the problem situation came prior to that: the circumstantial evidence surrounding the interviewer's assertion indicated that it most likely wasn't accurate. I was willing then to exclude reference to her schooling, but it did not seem reasonable to include a statement which appeared to be false. The issue from the direction I'm approaching it is that people are saying that we should or even must include such dubious material. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The point here is that you acted in good faith... You didn't just say "this is not true" and summarily remove sourced information.  Instead, you discussed your concerns with other editors and reached a consensus.  But, if a consensus had not been reached... if the other editors had disagreed with you and your arguments for questioning the source, then yes... both WP:V and WP:NPOV indicate that we would have had to leave the material you found "dubious" in the article. Blueboar (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my point is that people invoke "verifiability, not truth" as a means to constrain how that consensus may be obtained. And that's OK in the abstract, because that's really what our policies and guidelines are supposed to do. The trump-card argument that "V not T" is being used to support is that discussion of the merits of a source are to be disregarded because they are about "Truth". In My Real World (tm) fact-checking is part of verification, but a lot of people hold that in Wikipedia fact-checking is limited to collecting a set of sources and avoiding reconciling their contradictions. Mangoe (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to reconcile a contradiction. In this specific case, did you seek additional input at one of the various noticeboards? Are you still concerned about this particular issue (since, if you are, we could go take a look at it)? --Nuujinn (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Nuujinn and JJB I guess your proposals are also policy-acceptable, but I did not mention them because just according to my opinion they would decrease the quality of the article, so other solutions which are also within policy but make the article higher quality are to be preferred. See WP:IAR.
 * @Mangoe just in case it is not clear I think you approach is the best, and is within policy, and at least the way you explain it, it is a shame that others did not accept your reasoning about the prefer-ability of the school itself as a source, which sounds perfectly reasonable. It is a reasonable application of common sense to say that other more indirect sources may have mixed things up. See WP:UCS. Of course UCS and IAR should not be invoked too lightly, but I think this sounds like it should have been a straightforward case. I agree with you that too many people MAKE problems which are ONLY coming from literal interpretation of rules. If an article is made worse ONLY because of over-literal interpretation of a rule then that is a case where invoking WP:IAR should be appropriate. People on discussion pages like this seem to think that IAR is cited all over the place by trouble makers, but it is not, because actually invoking it does not get you very far in wikilawyering. It is not written in a legalistic way which is easy to abuse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Trying to reconcile contradicting sources can verge on OR, and we have to just take a firm stance against that. But I do think that one thing that Wikipedia requires - which may often help reconcile contrdictions, is to provide more context about the sources and the viewpoints they represent or contain.  I think this is implicit in mangoe's arguments concerning the preferability of the school as a source.  But regardless of which sources are used (and following NPOV, if different sources present diferent views, we provide multiple views and thus multiple sources), contextual information is very important.  I know that regarding some things e.g. what is the first day of summer, it might be impossible to see how context might explain why one source says June 21 and another source says July 21.  In other cases e.g. when is person x's birthday, context can be very informative for understanding why what the person said in an interview when they were in their twenties, versus an interview when they were in their fifties (or is that their forties?), and why their birth certificate, and church records provide conflicting information can be very useful (and unless any secondary sources do so, we can leave it to readers to make their own interpretations - the point is, the more contextual information provided, the better off the reader is). The importance of "context" for complying with NPOF (representing a view accurately) is something I have long thought could and should be more clearly or elaborately explained; this might be an important place to emphasize it as well.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Verging on OR" would not be OR, and so no one should be taking a firm stance against cases which are not OR, as if they were? Obviously the example you give are designed to be different from Mangoe's in the direction of being more clearly OR. How does that help?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are several ways to handle these difficulties, and there are several ways to create original statements. In general my bias is in the direction of not including questionable material, because as a rule the things that we don't say are not "facts" which can be held against us. Room has to be made for being excessively fastidious but for instance in BLPs we generally would prefer to be fastidious. The OR opportunity which I think we've missed so far is the creation of false controversies or uncertainties by reporting conflicting material at face value when it's really the case that one or the other simply has to be mistaken. Another example: Watts Island Light is variously reported to have been built in 1833 or 1867, by John Donahoo or by someone left unnamed. Everyone is working from the same data here, and it's simply not possible that Donahoo built anything in 1867, having been dead at the time. The 1833 date and the form of the tower are however quite consistent with Donahoo having built it then, and we have from at least one source that in 1867 the name of the light was changed. Rather than invent a controversy over the construction it made more sense to go with the most consistent account. The purer alternative, if you believe in that sort of purity, is not to list out the possibilities, but simply leave out the data, which is really hard to enforce for a lighthouse. Mangoe (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Mangoe, what do you mean by "questionable"? There is a big difference between questionable as a normal English word and questionable as in WP "questionable source". I also tend to avoid anything that seems controversial for whatever reason, including common sense reasons like an obvious typo. Of course this can sometimes also raise questions of WP:NEUTRALity if you are removing something BOTH notable and verifiable, so it is not always the best way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The meta-point here is that our notion of "questionable" needs to subsume the general sense of the word: we can be pickier, but we should not put ourselves in the position of repeating material which a reasonable person (and here "reasonable" implies "knowing enough about the subject to hold a credible opinion") would question if not outright reject. Or to take it another meta-level, behind verifiability as a principle lies credibility, of which verifiability is one of the vehicles. Mangoe (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Motion is made that WP:V is ambiguous

 * I move that WP:V is ambiguous with the two meanings:
 * The first sentence of WP:V protects against insertions of material that are alleged to be "true" but not verifiable.
 * The first sentence of WP:V protects against exclusions of material that are alleged to be "not true" but verifiable.


 * Do I hear a second? RB 66.217.118.17 (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For reference, the first sentence of WP:V 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." RB 66.217.118.17 (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph is even more egregious. It states, "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source...but in practice not everything need actually be attributed". This standard is not merely ambiguous, but outright contradictory. Wikipedia's so-called standards are so arbitrary and convoluted, that they are routinely twisted to justify whatever POV and whim an admin. desires. Wasp14 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

preliminary discussion about the motion

 * It does both, except that in cases where something is clearly false, in the sense of being a clear error, and there's no contention about it, editors would agree to leave it out. But material can't be excluded simply because it's a POV that others regard as wrong-headed, so long as the source is reliable—though in the case of a contentious issue, it would have to be a high-quality reliable one (or multiple reliable ones). SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 05:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see a problem. Yes, V does both.  But many of our policies have a range of implications and applications.  This is not the same thing as "ambiguous."  This would be a problem only if it were unclear to readers how to apply V.  In my experience the only people who have every ound V "ambiguous" (or wrong or troubling or incomprehensible) are those editors swho come here insisting that they know what the truth is.  These are people who may have read our policies but systematically ignore those sentences that tell them that Wp is not about "truth."  Then they complain that our policies are self-contradictory.  The obvious solution: just read the entire policy, and abandon your own convinction that you are an arbiter of truth.  Leave your assumptions at the door and all ambiguities and contradictions and so on disappear.  I see no point in writing more about this, when the problem is some users who ignore what has already been written.  It is reasonable for us to assume that users will read and accept our policies.  It is unreasonable for users to think they can read policies selectively and then make arguments against them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the cited sentence has been written in a careful and deliberate way to avoid the types of ambiguity which are contained in some interpretations of it. So I agree with others here in not seeing the problem. It distinguishes between what editors think is true, and what can be verified. Obviously by the way verifiability has to be considered along with notability and reliability. These three qualities together might be argued to help Wikipedian texts themselves contain truth, BUT it is not the truth according to individuals editors which individual editors should use as their rationale for inclusion of non obvious material. No one would want to read Wikipedia if it was full of false information. But ironically it would be full of false information if individuals editors took their orientation from their individuals ideas about what is true. Does that help?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Help? No, I can't tell that you are seeing the two different definitions.  When you talk about "their rationale for inclusion" that is definition 1.  Definition 2 involves exclusion.  When you talk about "what editors think is true," that is definition 1.  I think that SlimVirgin was on point when he talked about the "exception" that results while applying definition 2. RB  66.217.117.184 (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but perhaps AL doesn't agree that there are two interpretations there. I don't see one, myself. The first sentence directs us to focus on what can be verified by reliable sources, not what we know as true. It is not perfect, but it works well because it guides us away from discussions about what we believe and towards discussions of what we can prove, and because, generally speaking, reliable sources try to accurately reflect the world. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Straining to find the right metaphor I see two inter-locking pieces, that are not in direct conflict. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The goal is accuracy, where objective accuracy exists. And wp:ver is a very good means to that end. As long as you keep it in its place (rather than trying to reverse engineer a WP mission statement out of it as many do) I think that the fact that the first sentence does two different things does not mean that it is ambiguous. OK, maybe the use of the word "truth" vs "accuracy" is as sort of straw dog tactic against those who argue otherwise, because in actual use, the word "truth" often refers to opinions, while the word "accuracy" seldom does. But either way, it says that the final arbiter is verifiability, including for the two situations that you discuss. North8000 (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the word "threshold" is the source of the trouble. If the wording was "A necessary condition for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, rather than truth" that would make clear that WP:V never mandates inclusion. After all, editors regularly omit verifiable information which is not notable, or felt to be trivial or boring. Being not true is an equally good reason for omission. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that that would be a good change. They are both correct, but yours is written in a way that would reduce "mis-launches" from this sentence. North8000 (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a change is needed on that point, since WP:V does not trump WP:N, where the question of whether something is worth having is dealt with. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Verifiability is not the only content guideline. WP:BURDEN presumes that some things will be verifiable yet not be appropriate for a given article; the same with WP:N. The threshold language says precisely what it should.  RJC  TalkContribs 15:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the two definitions are "two inter-locking pieces, that are not in direct conflict." But consider the two definitions as an abstract mathematical entity, generating force on Wikipedia.  Definition (1) is a force opposed to things that "could be true", while Definition (2) is a force to include things that "could be not true".  From m-w.com ambiguity 1b "A word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways."  As long as we don't agree that there are two different forces (an ambiguity), it is harder to discuss any new operational definition for definition (2).  RB  66.217.117.95 (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:N has to do with whether or not a topic has sufficient notability to warrant a WP article, not with whether or not a point has sufficient weight to be mentioned in a WP article&mdash;that's WP:DUE (part of WP:NPOV). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This section has gone off into 4 completely directions. All interesting, but who knows what we're talking about. North8000 01:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi North8000. I have also been watching how the dynamic of these talkpages works. I think that the best way to get a focus on something is to make a concrete proposal. But in between concrete proposals people "think about stuff" which can help give proposals a proper hearing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * After reading through all of the above commentary and looking up WP:N; I don't agree, at least not yet, that we are herding cats. Wtmitchell notes that WP:N is not part of content policy; WP:NNC states, "The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies."  At the same time, the word "notability" is frequently used (9 times) on this page as it relates to content.  It seems that the word used in the policy is "prominence" (used 2 times on this page), but for now I understand that "notability" used here is a content issue.  It would be in the scope of a different post to explain how I see that "notability/prominence" is central to the ambiguity.  For now I'll say that both of the posts opposed to the wording change to remove "threshold" are confounded.  RB  66.217.118.89 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A related discussion has closed without resolution, and one suggestion from this discussion remains viable, the suggestion of 12:34, 27 November 2010. I support the change from "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia..." to "A necessary condition for inclusion in Wikipedia...", as I think the suggestion goes in the right direction.  RB  66.217.117.73 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion X, Opinion Y, and Opinion Z
This is an attempt to further clarify the ambiguity.

Introductory notes:
 * The term "WP:V-2010" is used below to mean the current first sentence in WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."


 * Definitions #1 and #2 have been previously discussed in this section:
 * 1) The first sentence of WP:V protects against insertions of material that are alleged to be "true" but not verifiable.
 * 2) The first sentence of WP:V protects against exclusions of material that are alleged to be "not true" but verifiable.

- - - - - - - - - - -

Opinion X, Opinion Y, and Opinion Z

Definition #1: a force opposed to things that "could be true"
 * Group A: Has no interest in things that "could be true".   (WP:V-2010), (empowers Definition #1)
 * Group B: Has an interest in things that "could be true".   (they might be true, even if not verifiable)

Definition #2: a force to include things that "could be not true"
 * Group C: Has no interest in things that "could be not true".   (WP:V-2010), (empowers Definition #2)
 * Group D: Has an interest in things that "could be not true".   (they might not be true, even if verifiable)
 * Opinion X: Groups A and C are "right thinking".  The thinking of members of Groups B and D wastes time.  WP:V-2010 is used to operationally define WP:ELNO "factually inaccurate material."  No changes are needed to policy.
 * Opinion Y: Groups A and D are "right thinking".  Members of Groups B and C need to read the policies.  Editors have common sense, and work together to apply the force of reason.  The force of reason is used in determining "factually inaccurate material".  No changes are needed to policy.
 * Opinion Z: Groups A and D are "right thinking".  Members of Group B are placing personal opinions about the truth of what is "true" over and above a practical operational definition of "true".  Verifiability is not itself "truth", and Opinion X "true believers" are placing personal opinions about the truth of what is "not true" over and above an operational definition of "not true".  The force of reason is being displaced by WP:V-2010 in deciding if something is "factually inaccurate material."  Editor concensus is not now empowered to decide that something verifiable has its notability/prominence reduced by being "not true".  Changes are needed to policy.  RB  66.217.117.47 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Threshold" again
Threshold is a word of many meanings, but the nearest relevant one, following wiktionary, is To say that verifiability is the threshold for inclusion therefore implies that it triggers inclusion, and that everything verifiable is included. This would be a ridiculous proposition, never followed in practice, so it's a bit silly to state it thus. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (engineering) The quantitative point at which an action is triggered, especially a lower limit


 * Well, from an engineering standpoint, your deduction is not 100% correct. A trigger can be what normally causes the event to happen, but still subject to other criteria. Trigger/gun is a great analogy...pulling the trigger normally fires it, but only if the safety is flipped off.    But I agree that the term is ambiguous in an area where it is important that it be un-ambiguous. Also, the inclusion of an example ("truth") in that sentence of something that does not trump the requirement is also confusing and problematic. North8000 13:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [inserted later] The definition for "threshold", that SamuelTheGhost gave in the first post, is definition 4 from wiktionary.org. From the viewpoint of definition 4, crossing a "threshold" triggers an action.  Conversely, if an action was not triggered, then the threshold was not crossed.  With this reading, if pulling a trigger does not fire the gun, then pulling the trigger is not a "threshold".  So I think that SamuelTheGhost was precise, but more to the point, I think that we should agree that definition 4 from Wiktionary is not the intent of the first sentence of WP:V.  RB  66.217.118.46 (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * [insert ends here]


 * Can you clarify what is ambiguous in the current version? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is the first of several thresholds for inclusion. But it is not the only threshold for inclusion.  The fact that something is verifiable means that it passes the first test and may potentially be included (it also has to pass the other thresholds).  However, because Verifiability is the first threshold, it does mean that anything that is not verifiable may be excluded. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its never implied (to me at least) that its the only threshold. AaronY (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll use terms from normal logic. Verifiability, the way policy is worded, is necessary but not sufficient. Material also has to be notable, and there are also some special rules for special cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the best other requirement to consider as proof that not all verifiable material should be included is that a consensus must be reached among the article editors that material is interesting enough to include in an encyclopedia. Notability applies to an article as a whole, but the interesting criteria applies to each claim within an article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bearing in mind that this is the change I wanted to introduce, it seems to me that everybody agrees that it says the right thing, some people agree that it's an improvement, and some people think that it's unnecessary because the existing text already says that, but nobody thinks that what I've proposed is actually wrong. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the patronization Alex. I guess what I'm saying is that its obvious to me if Bill Clinton attends a softball game in Peoria and it makes the local paper it doesn't merit inclusion in his article, even though technically this guideline says that it does. I don't care if the wording is changed, but I've never for a second thought it meant anything with a source gets in. Its common sense that it wouldn't. AaronY (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This guideline sets the minimum for inclusion while WP:NPOV and WP:NOTABILTY are for weight and relevance. Just because we don't summarize those policies here (which we could) doesn't suggest anyone take the policy in isolation (in fact, that's explicitly cautioned against). Ocaasi (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need to change the language... The intent of the statement is to outline what may and may not be added. If no reliable sources verify Clinton's attendance at the softball game, we may not mention it (even if his attendance is "true"). If reliable sources verify his attendance then we may mention it... but that permission does not mean we must mention it. I think this is clear in the current language. Blueboar (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The previous time these issues came up we ran into a language problem with both the word "notability" and the relation of WP:N to content policy. As noted by Wtmitchell [here], WP:N is not part of content policy. WP:NNC states, "The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." At the same time, the word "notability" is frequently used on this page as it relates to content. It seems that the word used in the WP:WEIGHT policy is "prominence". Since I didn't like the word "prominence" in this context, I started referring to "notability/prominence". FYI, RB 66.217.118.112 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC) [inserted later] See also: Notability vs. prominence. RB 66.217.117.192 (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC) [insert ends here]
 * Here is another definition of "threshold", the point being that a threshold isolates two states:


 * www.merriam-webster.com threshold 3b : a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not.


 * A threshold for inclusion is therefore also a threshold for the absence of inclusion. This is technically an ambiguity, where "ambiguity" is defined in www.merriam-webster.com as ambiguity 1b : "A word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways".


 * The problem for policy arises in considering verifiable material for the "absence of inclusion". WP:V says that editors cannot consider material that "could be not true" for the "absence of inclusion".  RB  66.217.118.112 (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also WP:Editorial discretion. Editors are expected, even required, to use their best judgment.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The "threshold for inclusion" implies a necessary, not a sufficient, condition. If the threshold for your inclusion at a party is that you bring the hostess some wine, it doesn't mean you'll be let in if you arrive with the wine, but also drunk and covered in mud. But there are times when the existence of a reliable source would be a sufficient condition too: if the article is underdeveloped, for example, or if the point is one required for NPOV.

We should be careful not to add anything to the policy that editors could use to reject reliable sources, because everything depends on context. What the policy currently implies is that if you arrive at an article with a good source, there has to be a strong editorial reason to keep your material out. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 06:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If a reliable source has printed a mistake, WP:V policy should not require editors to ignore the error. Under WP:V, editors cannot consider a retraction by the newspaper for the story about the Clinton softball game, because WP:V is "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."  WP:V is currently a force to include mistakes in the encyclopedia, and this force has no documented purpose.


 * From WP:V:
 * See also, argument from authority.
 * Notes, 4. "Wales, Jimmy (16 May 2006). "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information...I can NOT emphasize this enough."
 * RB 66.217.117.29 (talk) 22:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * *WhatamIdoing, Editorial discretion has the status of an "essay", it says an essay may be a "minority viewpoint", and "Consider these views with discretion." Discretion in this case can include citing WP:V the way it is currently written, which is that it is incorrect to challenge verifiable fallacies; since Wikipedia is about verifiability, not the truth of the verifiable statement.  RB  66.217.118.27 (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

With all of it's wording shortcomings, I think that it's clear that meeting wp:ver is a requirement for inclusion, not something that mandates inclusion.

It easy and common for a wp:"RS" to be unreliable, (wp:rs has no criteria for knowledge of the subject or objectivity) and to have information that is patently wrong, or just one of many conflicting opinions. More commonly, people misuse what's in a RS. For example, The New Your Times covers John Smith's claim that the earth is flat. Then they use the NYT as a source for the statement that the earth is flat. Either way, nothing in wp:ver mandates inclusion of anything. North8000 21:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If the consensus of editors is to omit something... just omit it. The "Threshold" clause allows for this... and if that is not enough, you can always invoke WP:IAR.  If, on the other hand, the editors are debating whether to include something, then we would need to know what the something is before we can address the issue further.  The simple fact is, we do not require that everything verifiable be added to an article... but we do require that anything added be verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that WP:V is "not something that mandates inclusion", that "we do not require that everything verifiable be added", and "we do require that anything added be verifiable.


 * We've seen that the word "threshold" is itself ambiguous, as two definitions have been given and are in use. We've seen that there is a connotation of "threshold" that is the "threshold for the absence of inclusion".  No one has offered a purpose for having a "threshold for the absence of inclusion".  I agree with what Blueboar said, "The intent of the statement is to outline what may and may not be added."  I submit that this proposal restores that intent, and that in the absence of further analysis, consensus exists to restore that intent.  RB  66.217.118.91 (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is needed. The intent is already clear in the old language. Blueboar (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, before I said I thought there was a consensus, I concluded you were using SamuelTheGhost's definition of "threshold", and that my response would clarify that the word "threshold" is confounded. The question becomes, even if you don't see the need, and think the intent is clear in the old language, is that an objection to a change which to you is not a change?  RB  66.217.118.91 (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, I'll take your silence as a "rhetorical answer". I'll also withdraw my thought that you were using SamuelTheGhost's definition, i.e., Wiktionary definition 4, of "threshold".  At this point, I don't know what definition of "threshold" you meant when you said in your recent post, "The "Threshold" clause allows for this..."  RB  66.217.118.46 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In summary, I think that "threshold" is ambiguous, and, per it's common use, would lead towards the wrong impression. I lost track of what the proposal is, but "requirement" or "condition" would be much better (and less ambiguous) words.  And, including an example of one thing ("truth") that does not override the condition, and a poor choice of a word is problematic on two levels. One, it confuses the main/core statement of wp:ver, and secondly it leads to wide mis-quoting that wp:ver states that accuracy (in cases where objective accuracy exists) is not an objective of Wikipedia.  So I think the "not truth" should also go.  North8000 14:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most editors here that the purpose of the "threshold" language is to say that it's not enough for something to be true, it must also be verifiable -- and even that may not be enough.

The main problem is that the principle, especially in the abbreviated form in which it is usually quoted ("verifiability not truth"), can be misunderstood as follows: We don't care whether something is true or not. We just check whether it's verifiable, and that's it.

This misunderstood version is actually convenient when dealing with fringers who claim that established and verifiable facts are false. (E.g.: "It is not true that Obama was born in Hawaii, so we can't say it." Response: We don't care whether it's true or not, only whether it's verifiable.) As a result, we have a significant number of experienced editors, including at least one high-profile admin, who believe this is the correct interpretation.

In the past we have had a number of situations in which there was a strong consensus among Wikipedia editors that all reliable sources that reported something were in fact wrong. These situations tend to attract editors who then claim that we are obliged to parrot the incorrect reporting as if it was true, because truth simply does not matter. This is particularly egregious in BLP cases and in cases such as the Sam Blacketer controversy article, which are about events that happened at Wikipedia. In these cases we are in the best situation to report the correct facts, and readers including journalists turn to us to learn about them, not for our parrotting of news sources without any warning that we know it's all misinformation.

For this reason I think the "threshold" wording needs tuning. However, the proposed change is certainly not optimal for this purpose. Hans Adler 15:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How about


 * Verifiability is an absolute requirement for inclusion of material in Wikipedia. No other consideration (such as assertions of truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. North8000 15:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I used "assertions of" in the example so as to not disparage the concept of accuracy. North8000 15:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Hans Adler would like to tell us what wording he would suggest? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, the problem on this page (and so many other policy pages) is that the original text was intended to be evocative of a principle, but many editors try to read it as literal law in order to use it as a hammer in particular disputes they are engaged in. The solution to the problem is to get editors to think about the bigger picture. Twiddling with the wording is not really going to help much.


 * That being said, the idea this line is pointing to is that Wikipedia editors should not be trying to evaluate the ontological truth-status of various perspectives on a topic. What we have, instead, is an epistemological problem: How do we know which statements about a topic qualify as knowledge that should be included in the encyclopedia, and what kind of knowledge do those statements represent?  The answer to the first question is that statements qualify for inclusion when they can be verified - i.e., when we can find credible published sources that make the statement in question.  The answer to the second question relies on a judgement of whether the statement is a commonly accepted truism, an established perspective in a debate, a dated historical claim, the opinion of an individual, or etc. - in other words, how does the statement fit into the greater social and scholarly worlds.  We are not trying to establish what is true about a topic, we are trying to present a snapshot of the prevalent beliefs about the topic.


 * I could propose better wording, but it's christmas ansd I have better things to do today.  -- Ludwigs 2  13:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Very nicely said, Ludwigs. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Ludwigs2 might demonstrate that he "could propose better wording" some time before next Christmas? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ok, but you're going to be disappointed next Christmas when there's nothing under the tree.


 * how about this? This would replace the entire intro:

.


 * I'm very sympathetic to that formulation, although it's quite a big change from what's there now. Two small comments:
 * You're a bit addicted to "in the greater world"
 * Things aren't "self-evident", but citation may be omitted for uncontroversial statements for which sources of verification are widely available, such as "most people have two legs" or "Manhattan is an island". (The sky often isn't blue) SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the tone, but I also have misgivings. One additional bit with which I would take issue is the assertion that "users must verify ... that the source is ... qualified to discuss that topic". No. Besides the special case of qualifying a recognized topic expert for acceptability as a SPS, I can't think of a circumstance in which editors (as distinct from users) need to verify (or, indeed, should make a judgment about) source qualifications. A rather extreme example would be qualification of e.g., Danny Glover or Rosie O'Donnell as acceptable sources for comments on world politics. Somewhat related to this is concern over the ambiguity of the term "source" -- If A publishes info that B asserted X about topic Y, then (presuming that A is a reliable source on the topic), is the degree of qualification of either A or B to discuss the topic a matter which requires editorial judgment by individual WP editors? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"A threshold" vs. "The threshold"
Some editors have posted that there is more than one threshold. Yet the first word of WP:V is not "a" but "the". I support having one requirement for inclusion, the point being that the other policies are for exclusion. I've tried to draw a word picture in the essay [Policy_sculpting:_inclusion_versus_exclusion]. FYI, RB 66.217.118.63 (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

In that we are discussing "a" vs. "the" currently, please see the essay [WP:Policy_sculpting:_inclusion_versus_exclusion] and the talk page [WT:Policy_sculpting:_inclusion_versus_exclusion]. RB 66.217.118.148 (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"condition" vs. "requirement"
These two definitions are from m-w.com

Definition of REQUIREMENT
 * 1 : something required: b : something essential to the existence or occurrence of something else : condition 

Definition of CONDITION
 * 2 : something essential to the appearance or occurrence of something else : prerequisite

I prefer "requirement" to "condition". RB 66.217.118.116 (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

"threshold" vs. "requirement"
"threshold" (1) No one has provided a definition that explains why we are using the word. (2) No one has disputed that one of the connotations of "threshold" is that there is a "threshold for the absence of inclusion". (3) No one supports having a "threshold for the absence of inclusion". In short, "threshold" is ambiguous.

"requirement" removes the ambiguity without changing the intent.

Proposal:

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

RB 66.217.118.116 (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: How about we kill three birds with one stone? For the reasons discussed above, proposal as follows:

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

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

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not "the requirement." It's "the threshold," an entirely different concept. This is a very commonly accepted phrase now, and I think people do understand what it means given how often I see it being cited correctly. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is reasonable to say that verifiability is required, and not use the word "threshold". Am I missing something?  I also have a problem with using an undocumented definition of "threshold".  The ambiguity that we are currently trying to resolve includes removing the "threshold for the absence of inclusion".


 * Also, do you think these editors are citing correctly?
 * Finally, it's irrelevant if that statement you mentioned wasn't "true". Wikipedia represents verifiability, not truth. We simply present the information given by reliable sources. (Ref: [here]).
 * ...("verifiability not truth"), can be misunderstood as follows: We don't care whether something is true or not. We just check whether it's verifiable, and that's it. (Ref: [here]).
 * ...editors who then claim that we are obliged to parrot the incorrect reporting as if it was true, because truth simply does not matter. (Ref: [here]). RB  66.217.117.121 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello SlimVirgin. "Requirement" simply says that it's necessary.  IMHO "Threshold" doesn't have a single unambiguous meaning, but most commonly means "necessary and sufficient" (which is essentially a "shall be included irrespective of other considerations" statement) which IMHO is not correct for Wikipedia.  That reason was the main thread of this discussion section, but was not my main motivation, which was to solve the problem that the current wording is often misinterpreted to say that accuracy (in cases where it objectively exists) is not an objective and not valued. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * North8000, I agree with your last statement, and I am aware that fixing the ambiguity with "threshold" does not solve my problem either. But it helps.  I think that with the absence of responses in opposition, and the clarity in the definition of "requirement"; we are at a point of consensus to make the limited one-word change.  RB  66.217.117.60 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A tinier change than I was hoping for, but I think it's good. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a simpler solution: We should change the sentence to read, "The minimum threshold for inclusion..."
 * That's what we mean, after all: Information that can be verified may (not must) be included; information that cannot be verified may not be included.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that the term "minimum threshold" would withstand logical dissection, but I agree that it does convey what we mean. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should put minimum threshold in the garbage receptacle for trash. If we need to adjective-ize it to make sense, we've probably chosen the wrong word. I like your suggestions, but this one seems like the wrong fix. Ocaasi (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK then, is anybody strongly opposed to "requirement"? If not I'd be willing to be bold (ok, semi-bold :-)   ) and try putting it in. North8000 (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not revert the change... but I really really really prefer "threshold". I think it is the best word to express what we mean (a line you must cross, the barrier that separates "outside" from "inside"). Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't just one word like I thought. We can't just sub the one word because because then it would say "the requirement"  which says that there is (only) one requirement. And so if we say "a requirement", now we are making a new (arguable) statement that truth is not a requirement, i.e "upgrading" that from an implication to a statement.    IMHO the real fix would be my proposal:
 * "Verifiability is an absolute requirement for inclusion of material in Wikipedia. No other consideration (such as assertions of truth) is a substitute for verifiability."
 * which we haven't talked about much. I don't plan putting anything in at this time.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"requirement" vs. "absolute requirement"
To me the word "absolute" is verbiage. Also there is some text that has been removed without an explanation. Here is an alternate to North8000's proposal: Was:
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

New:
 * "Verifiability is required for inclusion of material in Wikipedia; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. No other consideration, such as assertions of truth, is a substitute for verifiability."

RB 66.217.118.148 (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your version is better and corrects my omission. I know "absolute" is technically redundant; I had it in for emphasis, but it's probably better to leave it out. North8000 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think threshold is better, but seem some improvement in the latter parts of the phrase. If it were up to me I'd use: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. No other consideration, such as assertions of truth, is a substitute for verifiability." FWIW. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Than takes care of my main concern and reason that I consider this to be a big improvement. (previously discussed) Other folks were more concerned about the requirement vs. threshold. But I do think that requirement is less ambiguous than threshold. North8000 (talk) 18:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is an improvement over the current policy statement. It might even help clarify the "requirement" vs. "threshold" discussion.  RB 66.217.117.27 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 66, I think that you were the number 1 person proposing the threshold/requirement word change. If you're cool with this (version by Nuujinn), I certainly am.   If there are no objections, I'll be semi-bold and put it in.  North8000 (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the discussion has gone on a long time, let's give it a day to give others a chance to respond--may folks are busy in RL since classes are starting (at least in the US). --Nuujinn (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was planning on doing that.  I should have clarified. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, it's been 2 days. Here goes. North8000 (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the comma in the proposal after the bold word "verifiability" should be a semi-colon. FYI, RB  66.217.117.191 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(Outdent)Cool. So just so there is clarity, this would be to:
 * replace the entire first (one sentence) paragraph with:
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. No other consideration, such as assertions of truth, is a substitute for verifiability."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

discussion following the revert (threshold again)
[continued from Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_44]


 * North, there's clearly no consensus for the change you want to make, and the current wording has been widely cited for years, so please don't change it again unless the consensus becomes clear. People have to know, when they quote a policy from memory, that the material is going to be there when they come to check it. "Verifiability, not truth" sums up the core editing approach of Wikipedia, and people find it memorable and easy to understand. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 12:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * People, even some admins, also misunderstand "verifiability, not truth" as saying we don't care about truth at all and that we intentionally make our articles lie (e.g. about things concerning Wikipedia, as in Sam Blacketer affair) in case the "reliable sources" clearly get things wrong. I.e., these editors argue that even an exceptionally strong consensus of editors that information (in this case BLP information) is obviously false is not enough to keep it out of an article once it has appeared in an "RS" and not contradicted by others. This is not what happens in practice, but the widespread misconception has sometimes led to unnecessary disruption.
 * This formulation has existed for so long that it has become almost impossible to change now, and of course a consensus needs to be obtained before changing it. But it must be changed or at least annotated with an explanation that discourages the fundamentalist interpretation. Let's work for a consensus to do so. Hans Adler 13:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Slim and all.  The change was the end result of a 3 week group discussion (above) and then in the end set out for an extra 2 days for any one who had any objections. There seems to be a double standards here. North8000 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a long, convoluted discussion, and it's by no means clear that there is any outcome at all. There can be no strong consensus unless interested editors can see at a glance what is at stake and that a consensus, with which they may or may not agree, is about to form. Without that, there will never be enough participation for a sufficiently robust consensus. Hans Adler 19:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the substance of it, a part of the discussion was that this is a verifiability policy, and it says that verifiability is absolutely required, and that nothing trumps the requirement. This doesn't change policy, it actually gets rid of flaws which clouded the policy.  Specifically, this gets rid of the lack of clarity in one portion of the sentence  which just said one particular thing ("truth") doesn't trump verifiability, and in a way that causes it to be widely mis-misapplied to disparage the idea of accuracy (in cases where objective accuracy exists). IMHO this is a good change that should be made. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, hells belles, let it go. This doesn't help clarify the policy at all, it just adds more wikilawyer fodder.  I can already imagine editors trying trying to subvert NPOV by presenting a biased source and saying it's 'absolutely required' that we use verified sources.  please read the points I made a couple of threads up.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Last thing I want to do is add to Wikilawyering! But I think that the title of this subsection confused matters.....there was no "absolutely" in what the group developed.  The new wording was that of Nuujinn's 18:06 9 January post except with the punctuation change by 66.212,  Which I recapped in my 17:38 10 January post.
 * I read your earlier post. I think that may be a very good discussion to have, but a bit off of this topic.  The change did not put anything in promoting accuracy.  It just reworded something which had often been mis-quoted as disparaging accuracy.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A change we agreed to in this discussion has been reverted with the edit comment, "...please gain clear consensus before changing it".


 * This discussion began on 25 November 2010, and over the course of three sections has had 163 comments from 21 participants. Thereby, readers of this page are aware of this discussion and its objectives.  Five comments marked the consensus call on January 10.  More than 46 hours elapsed after the final consensus call before the change was promoted.  I think that this is a reasonable procedure to determine consensus in this context, and clearly there was a consensus with this procedure.  Thus I see no basis for the revert.  RB  66.217.118.187 (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, This is a continuation from the message started in the next subsection. I think there is a difficulty here in consensus building if a VIP editor can wait until after a presumably valid consensus has been established and make a revert.  I'd like to know if you agree or disagree that the consensus process that was followed was reasonable in the context.  If not, what should have been done differently?  Thank you, RB  66.217.117.30 (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly there was a consensus with the procedure that was used. Are there any comments as to whether it was a reasonable procedure to determine consensus in this context?  If not, what should have been done differently?  RB  66.217.117.16 (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion on proposed wording change in lead

 * 66 laid it out more thoroughly and completely than I did.  Plus it's not even a change in policy, it just more clearly states the policy. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There was nobody against the final proposal, and it set out there an extra 2 days for an extra opportunity to comment. So I guess the next step to put it out there for further input//discussion, including any objections. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that "verfiability, not truth", is a pithy and memorable phrase, which is extremely helpful in starkly outlining what Wikipedia tries to do. Yes, it can be misinterpreted, and of course we want material to be true as well, but "truth" is subjective, verifiability is objective. It might be helpful to further clarify what we mean, but removing the phrase is, I think, detrimental. Jayjg (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, Please see [Opinion_X.2C_Opinion_Y.2C_and_Opinion_Z]. Many times during the course of this conversation editors have expressed concern regarding Group B thinking.  But you will see that none of the critical opinions; Opinion X, Opinion Y, and Opinion Z; support Group B thinking.  A goal here was to remove part of the basis for the idea that as long as material is verifiable, it doesn't matter whether it is true or not true.  See Argument_from_authority.  In my opinion everyone here agrees and has agreed with your basic concern which is that we don't want to take time to consider the truth of material that is not verifiable.  I agree that we should restore the words "verifiability, not truth" in some form.  I have made a further response regarding process in the previous subsection.  RB  66.217.117.163 (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Jaygig, it's not that it can be misterpreted, it's that it is pervasively mis-interpreted. The proposed change also sidesteps /reduces the other issue in that "truth" is an ambiguous and somewhat pejorative and straw dog substitute for the word accuracy.  And also a pejorative way of characterizing efforts towards accuracy, for cases where objective accuracy exists.  I say all of this because one of the common uses of the "truth" is referring to what is actually opinion and proselytizing, nothing to do with accuracy. North8000 (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Is there any other opposition to this long-discussed potential change? North8000 (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Not opposition, but I wonder if there's not some way of honoring the older phrasing, perhaps by referencing in a subsequent sentence that the policy has been and will likely continue to be expressed in this way. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the proposal located? I don't see it on this page. Cold someone restate it please?   Will Beback    talk    00:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It was a proposal made some weeks ago to remove or change "verifiability, not truth," and/or "threshold for inclusion," and there were several objections. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 00:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect, it's a bit more complicated than that. But the short version of the last proposal is here.

Somehow the section got cut in half and the proposal and the arguments for it got archived, even with new material in them. It is:

replace the entire first (one sentence) paragraph with:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. No other consideration, such as assertions of truth, is a substitute for verifiability."

North8000 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to Jayjg's well founded concern, I might suggest this alternative:
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. This policy has traditionally been expressed with the phrase "verfiability, not truth," which emphasizes that no other consideration, such as assertions of truth, is a substitute for verifiability."
 * Just a tupence, --Nuujinn (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, that could be a compromise. Recapping a couple of points from the quickly archived discussions, the currently one is widely misquoted as disparaging the idea of accuracy.    Also, the current one is structurally bad because it just gives one particular example of a thing that isn't a substitute for verifiability.  Sort of implies and 'either or" situation, and weakens the verifiability by seemingly  leaving out the other things that aren't a substitute. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the current version emphasizes the one opposition, and there are others. But history is important as well, and the current version has served us well. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Coming to this discussion late, but when I see people arguing that a particular wording "has served us well" or some such, I can normally be pretty sure that they've run out of genuine arguments. I would certainly like to drop or amend the misleading "verifiability, not truth" slogan - we presumably do want truth as an ideal, but the only practical way we know of of ensuring that we approximate truth is by insisting on verifiable statements. And that's actually "verifiability" in a very specific sense, too. What the slogan actually means, I guess, is "truth according to reliable sources, not truth according to the declarations of editors". --Kotniski (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The truth (verifiability) the whole truth (NPOV) and nothing but the truth (NOR) -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that, PBS, be a nice start to an essay. Kotniski, would you like a nice chablis with your snark? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As a sidebar, "truth" is sort of a slightly pejorative straw man substitute word for the word "accuracy". I say this because the word "truth" often refers to proselytizing, faith-based statements, opinions or worse.   Objective accuracy does exist when there is 99%+ acceptance for the framework of the statement.  So it does exist for the statement "tallest mountain in the world", and it doesn't exist for "the greatest football player of all time".  And information is a part of the Wikimedia objectives.  Objectively wrong "information" is not information. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed solution to this interminable debate
This argument has been going on forever, and shows no real likelihood of stopping anytime soon. So, maybe it's time we just boldly rewrote the lead entirely, and to hell with history. We can add a 'legacy' section below if anyone really wants it. Proposed rewrite (getting rid of all the things that people squabble over, hopefully):

Have at it! -- Ludwigs 2 18:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You fixed several issues in one swoop! Something that huge and fast inevitably has a few imperfections. Not sure I understand the distinction between verificaton and attribution. Also, I'd rather not diss objective accuracy (for those cases where such exists). North8000 (talk) 22:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely way to go. But not exactly this, though - this lead needs to be written in nice, ordinary-person-friendly language - the worst thing it could do is put people off joining the project by making them think Wikipedia is terribly complicated. The word "exclusionary" here loses the audience as early as the third sentence. And no references to "claims"!! That misleads as to what frame of mind we expect people to come to Wikipedia in. --Kotniski (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @ kotinski: yes, sometimes I am ordinary-person-friendly-language-challenged, I freely admit it.    I'm ok with a rewording, but those two point do need to be covered somehow
 * the 'exclusionary' bit is needed in some form to kibosh the classic POV-advocate "I have a source, so we have to include this" thing. we need to point out that verification is a test for whether something can be used, not whether it should be used.
 * the 'claims' thing is really important, though maybe not the best language. the thing to get across here is we as editors make statements about a topic in the encyclopedia, and it's those statements that we make that need to be verifiable in sources. A lot of editors forget that wikipedia itself always has a voice - whatever is written in any article is what Wikipedia says about a topic - and the struggle here is to ensure that wikipedia's voice (the claims that wikipedia makes about a topic) accurately reflects the voices of sources.
 * @ North8000: the way I see it (based on debates I've had here over the issue):
 * verification is the simple act of making sure that something written in wikipedia accurately reflects what's been said in the real world. For instance, if some editor edited the GH Bush article to claim that the sign behind W said "Mission accomplished, suckers", that would not be verifiable, while the same phrase without the 'suckers' part would be.
 * attribution is how we give credit for a particular statement, which is more in the NPOV balance direction. generally there are four levels of attribution:
 * no attribution, implying broad acceptance of a claim (the standard "Mars is a planet" thing)
 * group attribution, implying broad acceptance of a claim within a particular POV ("Hindus see Brahman as the highest spiritual entity")
 * specific attribution using a footnote, implying a claim given by a particularistic source who would largely be considered qualified and unbiased ("The Obama administration is embarking on a new policy of..." )
 * specific inline attribution, implying a claim that is questionable, localized to a particular (usually minority) POV, polemic, or otherwise not to be taken as a generally accepted statement ("Linus Pauling argued that large doses of Vitamin C could effective cure a broad range of diseases")
 * Also, I'll confess I have difficulty with the concept of 'objective accuracy'. Too much Philosophy of Science in my brain...    Plus, I think Wikipedia needs to make a bright-line rule blocking concerns with ontological truth no matter what language it appears in.  Science itself might aim for something like 'objective accuracy' (as I've said elsewhere, one of the premises of modern science is the assertion is that one can make an induction from collective subjective experience to ontological facticity - yeah, I know, everyone just had a brain freeze; sorry), but wikipedia shouldn't be trying to evaluate science on that level.  We should keep it on the level of describing topics neutrally, and leave it up to sources to worry about whether the topics are understood correctly.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Ludwigs2  I think that the "the more questionable the claim, the stronger sourcing needed (and vica versa) fills an important hole in the policy.   But it is confusing that you seem to be switching between implying that verification and attribution are two different things, and then that they are the same.
 * I wasn't trying to push the idea of objective accuracy (even in those cases where it exists). I was just saying let's not actively diss it.   Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see what you mean about accuracy - I misunderstood you before, sorry.


 * With respect to the other: verification and attribution are two different things, but they are related. verification asks the question "is what we say an accurate reflection of what's said in the real world?" Attribution asks the question "How careful do we have to be making this statement in Wikipedia's voice".  Obviously, one can verify many statements from many sources that should not be stated directly in wikipedia's voice (e.g. statements of White Supremacist organizations about minority groups); Obviously, one can make many common sense statements in wikipedia's voice that would be difficult or pointless to verify from specific sources (e.g. statements about who the president of the US was in a given year).  First we need to verify a statement (if only to say that it's too generic to need specific verification); once verified, we need to determine the best way to psent it in the encyclopedia so as not to misrepresent it.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of brilliant ideas there that would be big fundamental changes. I'm almost thinking that we should still deal with the tiny proposed change (and which is not a policy change) prior to your proposal and then move on to yours? North8000 (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * well, North, as a dyed-in-the-wool tinkerer I have a strong preference for patching things up - duct tape is my bestest friend. But even I recognize that there comes a point where you just have to stop nursing something along and go out and get a new one.  People have been wrestling over micro-changes to this policy for years now, with absolutely no progress whatsoever. Whether or not your tiny proposed change goes through, this same argument (IMO) is going to start up again in a week, as though nothing had changed. and that's because - honestly - nothing will have changed.


 * I'm halfway tempted to edit this in right now with the edit summary "BOLD change to long-standing policy because I'm tired of people squabbling endlessly over petty crap", because that's pretty much how I feel about it. -- Ludwigs 2 16:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I like many aspects of it. Maybe a few suggestions:
 * "Exclusionary" is not a common word, but it does have an explanation. But given that it gets explained anyway, do we need the word itself?
 * "over- or under-representing their significance to the topic" . Maybe "...as it is presented in reliable sources relevant to the topic" or something like that? My point being that there is perhaps a hole here concerning how what defines the significance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ludwig2, you do brilliant work.  But I think that this contains a fundamental re-definition of the word verifiability/verification.   I still am not clear on what that new definition is, and not sure that you have fully thought it through.    Your first definition of verification sort of presumes that a agreed definitive source exists (I think an oversimplificaiton in a major area) and that verification means checking against it.  Then your attribution definition introduces the concept that I have been promoting (the more questioned/questioned the statement, the stronger the sourcing required. and vice versa. But thiis deos not define attribution.   Your only real definition of attribution seemed to related to giving credit.  North8000 (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Truth ?
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is accurately stated, but misinterpreted in secondary sources (like the ever-misquoting press) as saying "The threshold in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", referring to both inclusion and deletion. WP:Commonsense, which is only an essay, not a policy, (or the scary IAR policy invocation) may use a truth threshold for deletion that is stronger than V policy, especially re BLP and MEDRS. PPdd (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am new to Wikipedia and a bit confused. Does verifiability mean that if someone can find a source for a truth-claim, then they can cite the source, and thus, the truth-claim becomes "true" for Wikipedia? For example, if I say, "all dogs are brown," and I have a source for that, is my truth-claim valid?  Also, what about historical sources.  If a primary-source historian writes something as true, can I cite that? For example, can I cite Herodotus as saying that the Babylonians were skillful fighters and put in the article? (I don't know if Herodotus made a similar truth-claim, but just for the sake of argument.)  The reason I am concerned with this is that anyone could cite anything as true, even though it may not be true. Any responses would be much appreciated.--Joshuajohnson555 (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent question - the other half of "verifiable" is "reliable". So yes, if it's both verifiable and reliable, you can cite it - even if it turns out to not be "true". However, "truth" and "reliable" correlate closely. If a source provides bad information, editors will quickly label it "unreliable" and... problem solved. We use V & RS as our gold standard to filter out cranks. It also filters out legitimate researches who want to publish their works here first, but since that's not really how academic research gets done, that's not much of a problem (except for a few genuine experts who've had their noses severely tweaked by high school editors following these rules). Rklawton (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to the smaller / longer-discussed proposal
[continued from Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_44]

Ludwig2, again you do brilliant work, but I would like to still deal with the much smaller proposal of the discussions which, recapping, is:

replace the entire first (one sentence) paragraph with:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. No other consideration, such as assertions of truth, is a substitute for verifiability."

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * well, ok, but the problem with that particular line is that it doesn't make it clear what relation people should have to truth. I can see people following this kind of logic: "sure, assertions of truth are not a substitute for verifiability.  but assertions of truth are 'right' and so therefore have their own value  and place on project." We have to get something in here that dispels the idea that the project is aiming to express truth, but instead uses verifiability to ensure accuracy.  do you see what I mean?  -- Ludwigs 2  17:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with you 100%. (actually 1000%).   Right now this is only in the higher level Wikimedia statements, and wp:ver is merely a means to that end. WP:ver CAN semi-successfully be and is myopic of the bigger picture.  You are proposing to change / fix that 100% which is huge. What I'm promoting only fixes that 1%, that 1% went a long time in discussion here without dissent, and even then got reverted when I put it in.  Gotta start somewhere.  North8000 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As a thought: Accuracy on Wikipedia is objective and is determined per  sources, while truth is subjective. When using sources to illustrate truth one is actually creating OR because the editor and his opinions are manipulating the sources to an end "statement". I think one of the hardest things for a new editor is to understand that an encyclopedia is  not a research paper,  but is a compilation of information. Information by definition has to be found somewhere rather than newly created. Weight is an incredibly important aspect of Wikipedia since it helps determine the  the importance/significance of the sources. By determining their weight to the whole subject area  accuracy of the article is determined. As an aside editors quite often use weight when it suits them and ignore it when it doesn't possibly because its a kind of second tier. Threshold for inclusion doesn't mean everything can be included just that the basic standard has been met then weight comes into play. Probably what is needed is a chart to set this down... a picture is worth a thousand words...yadyadyada..:o)


 * Actually the Policy as it is worded now does not define verifiability and its connection to what an encyclopedia is. It starts right in with verifiable as a descriptor of something else - sources.


 * Just brainstorming with this version. Not attached in anyway.(olive (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Overall I think that yours is better.  But structurally I think we need to get in there that no other consideration is a substitute. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Making charts... you must be an academic - lol.  The difficulty with this is that saying "An assertion of truth, a subjective consideration" is likely to confuse vast ranges of people who don't see truth as subjective at all.  The whole 'truth' thing is such an ugly red herring...  how about replacing the last line with something like "Wikipedia editors should not write articles from the perspective of what they know to be true, no matter how well founded their knowledge is, but should restrict themselves to information that can be found by anyone."  -- Ludwigs 2  03:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The word truth shouldn't be used because of its diverse relationship to multiple philosophical positions/theories/meanings... very red herring ish. Your wording is an improvement over mine... I'm not sure about "know to be true" another red herring, maybe "think to be true" would be better, and "found by anyone" reads well, but does't take into account sources that are only available to some editors. Maybe that's not a concern.(olive (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC))


 * I like the first sentence  as-is  &mdash; with the bolding for emphasis, and with the placement to stand alone as a first paragraph. Clarifications are best left for later. Wishy-washiness and weaseling should be left out.


 * Also, saying that editors should restrict themselves to information that is easily found would be to back off of longstanding policy. Ease of verifiability is a plus, evan a big plus, but is only a plus. I say this as an editor who lives on and is writing this from a small island having no libraries located in a country having few libraries; "verifiable" for me is restricted to what I have on my bookshelf or can access online. Having said that, I'll also say that ease of verifiability is not and should not be a requirement. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your thoughts on "easily found", but I believe that is not an issue because I don't think that it is in any of the proposals. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [WP:Editing policy] states, "...on Wikipedia a lack of information is better than misleading or false information—Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted encyclopedia depends on the information in articles being verifiable and reliable." RB  66.217.117.98 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Jargon in the first sentence. How about some standard English instead?
Over the years Wikipedia, like any culture, has acumulated its share of jargon. Some of it is natural, and some is unnecessary and legalistically obstructive to understanding. Nowhere is this problem demonstrated than the first sentence in the WP:V policy, where two standard English words are used in a way that is nonstandard, and which tends to invite wiki-wars among people who assume unconsciously that the words they have heard over and over, are meant in their normal senses. Here is the first sentence of WP:V:

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

This statement is quite deceptive, for it is full of jargon. In failing to define its terms completely and immediately, it sets up an odd dichotomy between "verfiability" (as we usually understand the word) and "truth." (as we usually understand the word). Iin the real world, where verifiable simply means provably-true, and provable is a loaded word, such a dichotomy exists between that which is true and provably true. In the real world, standards of provability are not those acceptable to Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia isn't trying. "Verifiability" is defined by Wikipedia in this opening sentence as consisting of two distinct parts: [1] Whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been "published" [at that point the "material" could be a flat-out mistake, lunatic idea, or a deliberate lie], and [2] That the publication occurs in a "reliable source." A "reliable source" is (in turn) defined lower down within the same policy, in the WP:V section on sources WP:SOURCES: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

Now, "fact-checking" has to do with checking facts, which in turn are defined (see any dictionary) as statements that are TRUE. Likewise "reputation for accuracy" means "reputation for being true or close to true." Fact and accuracy are synonyms for truth and "truth-hood." (opposite of falsehood). Calling the idea of "truth" by another name (as well as putting synonyms like "fact" and "accuracy" farther down the policy page) unnecessarily obscures a simple meaning, and a simple goal. Wikipedia's goal is indeed truth. However, the very idea of that it is not, causes Wikipedia editors to go around cudgeling each other with the idea that "verifiablity," trumps "truth," as though they were using these words in their normal meanings, instead of their special "wiki-meanings."

So now, we require an exegesis. Let us find out what the first sentence of WP:V means in standard English, by getting rid of all jargon and wiki-meanings. We will unpack and rewrite the first sentence of WP:V in standard English, using the policy's own definitions for the wiki-words, as necessary. Ready? First, we replace "reliable" by "published, with reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and then, we replace "fact-checking and accuracy" with "truth-checking and truthfullness." Here's what we get:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by reliable third-party sources with a reputation for truth-checking and truthfulness, and NOT whether the editors think the material is true."

That fixes puncutation and gets rid of the wiki-words and wiki-meanings in the last part. We are now in a position to get rid of the wiki-meanings in the first part, so that now ALL of the words are used in their normal standard English definitions:

"The threshold for inclusion of material in Wikipedia is published-source truthfulness, not the editor's idea of truth: that is, whether Wikipedia's readers can check that material in Wikipedia has been published by reliable third-party sources who have a reputation for truth-checking and truth-telling, and NOT whether Wikipedia's editors merely personally think that the material is true."

At this point, we have de-obscured the text, and with it, some of the problems. Wikipedia's own policies are actually all about "truth"- TRUTH is what reliability and fact-checking are about. When the policy says it is about verifiability and NOT truth, this is an obscurantist, for neither word is being used here as in standard English. In standard English, "verifiability" can mean many things, including what the reader can prove it to him or herself by checking by his/her own math, or by going to see for him or herself. Verification also has many possible meanings in the sciences and law, and standards differ from one discipline to another. The statement doesn't actually mean that Wikipedia is about "verifiability" as we all understand the word— it's about a particular documentary version of reality used by Wikipedia, which is narrower, not perfectly well-defined, and very much media-driven. For example, I might be a celebrity with a mole on my right hand. If the New York Times states it is on my left hand, then Wikipedia's use of the word "verifiability" departs from the standards of the English language. For here, Wikipedia doesn't mean the word in any way that has contact with either reality, or standard English usage. In such cases, I can't prove a thing to anybody who reads otherwise in their newspaper.

Likewise, when the WP:V policy states that the standard of Wikipedia inclusion is NOT "truth," it also does not use the term as it is usually understood. In this case, Wikipedia IS actually interested in truth as we normally understand the word "truth" when we speak of public truth, demonstrable truth, scientific truth, legal truth, or even journalistic truth. It simply isn't about personal truth or any other type of truth one could NOT use in a legal or science debate. It's not about your truth and my truth, unless some other "reputable" person or source has published it, and one can cite it, as in a debate or courtroom. Worse, the question of "reputation" of a publisher, is in the eyes of the beholder.

What this policy actually means to say, is that the threshold for Wikipedia inclusion is NOT what its writers think is true, but rather what some OTHER published writers, who have a "reputation" for telling truth, think is true, and have gotten somebody else to "publish" (whatever "publish" means these days). That seems to be a more narrow statement, but at least it is closer to what Wikipedia's policy actually means to say.

Alas, the problem of how a Wikipedia writer, independent of his or her own sense of "truthiness," is to identify these published truth-telling authors, and their truthy works and truthy reputations, is the rub. Some published writers are wrong, some ignorant, some are shills, and others are less than sane. This is the source of many an edit war, as an editor's personal idea of what is true, will naturally have heavy effects on their judgement of the truthfulness of available published sources. Must one include the writings of the confused, the ill-informed, the hacks and the crazies? But at least we're a bit closer to the root of the epistemological problem. First, one must lay out the policy in plain standard English.

(The above was written after a recent encounter with a few other editors of an article who had no idea what WP:V means, but it wasn't their fault. It was the WP:V policy's fault). S B Harris 01:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For those interested in the mad scribblings of the editors who do not understand WP:V, the discussion in question is on Talk:Max Gerson. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And there, you will find a mighty lame argument, in which one editor (not me) removes material about an alternative clinic's views on a conspiracy to poison its guru, under the guise that they are not "verifiable" (though they come from a film made by the woman who runs the program, the daughter of the guru, and this statement was sourced and cited). And then you will find the editor above, adding back material from literature from the very same quacks, on the idea that quacks indeed are a reliable source about what quacks think about their own quackery. Neither of these editors are me. However, everybody on that TALK page seems to be convinced that they know WP policy in this area, and have quoted WP:V to me several times, now, as though I needed some teaching. Okay. Yes, it prompted me to come here to find out if everybody who thinks they understand this policy, really understands this policy. What did I miss, please? I put my essay up above, regarding the first line of it. Now it's your turn, Wikipedians. Impress me. S  B Harris 06:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I agree that this policy (and its cousins) are very poorly written in places, and from a logical point of view very poorly constructed. It's as if the people writing them didn't really want them to be understood. But try to improve them in the normal wiki way, and you come up against a kind of religious cult which practically worships the current wording of these pages as scripture, and will ensure that even the most reasoned changes (even those resulting from lengthy talk page discussion) get blindly reverted without rational explanation. Hence these most important parts of Wikipedia's documentation, which ought to be among the most clearly written, in fact end up among the most confusing (since the normal healthy processes by which we improve pages are not allowed to operate here).--Kotniski (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't require third party sources for verifiability; we prefer them, and we need some of them for notability, but for verifiability, information may be taken from primary sources as well, with some caveats (not contentious, not unduly self-serving, ...). The rest of your changes don't really make the meaning of the nutshell any clearer, in my opinion, e.g. "published-source truthfulness" is much harder to decipher than "verifiability". We may of course improve the current text, but your proposal is a step in the wrong direction. Something like

"The threshold for inclusion of material in Wikipedia is that it has been published by reliable sources, not that it is the truth that is, whether Wikipedia's readers can check that material in Wikipedia has been published by sources where fact-checking and accuracy is generally expected, and not whether Wikipedia's editors personally think that the material is true."
 * may be better, perhaps. Fram (talk) 10:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If we're talking about this sentence, then: (a) not "the threshold" (there are various reasons we might or might not decide to include some statement in some article; this is just one of them); (b) not "that it has been published by" but "that it is supported by" or words to that effect; (c) not "not truth" or anything like that - we don't want sourced information that we know to be false. I would start something like this: "It is a core principle of Wikipedia that information added to it must be verifiable from reliable sources. This policy describes what kind of sources are considered reliable for which purposes, and how they can be used to support the inclusion of information in Wikipedia articles." --Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC) I've placed the three versions under discussion above for easier comparison. My own first comment about SBHarris' proposals is that I believe the aim of using normal English is a good one, and I agree that this policy is not always well understood, but (a) trying to avoid all internal jargon ("un packing") makes sentences longer, which obviously does not mean easier to understand. (b) the attempt at reducing jargon also does not really work for me. Is "published-source truthfulness" normal English? I do not think so. Fact is that Wikipedia has developed some new concepts which are useful for discussion about Wikipedia and hard to discuss without using terms for those concepts. This is the type of situation in which neologisms and jargons are sometimes justified. (And wikilinking does make our jargon a little easier to learn.) That does not mean we should not be constantly careful of jargon, and constantly looking for policy areas where people are misunderstanding things often.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't think SBH's proposals achieve the stated aim (they look even more jargony than the original, and are not fully accurate in all situations). Can you add Fram's proposal - which is better (though still not as good as mine, of course ;) ) - to the table?--Kotniski (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski, one thing I do not like about your proposal is that you remove one of the most "normal English" bits about "not whether [individual] editors think it is true". BTW, the word individual should logically be there because a consensus of editors is good enough also. I'll add Fram.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * How about simply removing the 'not truth' from the current version but leaving in everything else to produce
 * "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
 * This expresses it well enough for me whilst upping verifiability and not confusing people by having not immediately preceding truth. Dmcq (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an improvement, but still has the problems mentioned (and some others): this isn't the threshold (there are other factors too); it's not essential that all readers are able in practice to check something (so those words are a bit misleading); the material itself needn't have been published (in the way that many people will understand that phrase); and frankly, if editors don't think something's true, it shouldn't be going in. I would be happier if we stuck with Andrew's suggestion of saying individual editors.--Kotniski (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And let's remember this isn't the whole policy, just the first sentence - it's not essential that we say everything here, just that we introduce the subject, say what the page is going to be about, and avoid saying anything contentious or misleading. (Which is what I've tried to do with my version - the contentious bit of course is what counts as "reliable", so I say straight away that this issue is going to be dealt with in detail.) --Kotniski (talk) 11:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "published-source truthfulness" isn't very good, and "publication in a reliable source" is better. I just don't like the word "verifiability," as it means something different to Wikipedians than it does to everybody else, and it's especially bad to use a privately-defined term, up front in a policy. Define it specially much later, if you MUST use it. The resistance to using other words is that we'd have to rename this policy page- but so what? Somebody has noted that not everything in WP really must be proven (by cite) to have been published in a reliable source, so long as the editors all agree with the material, and there is no contention. So it's theoretically provable-by-cite (if you could find a cite for an obvious thing). But trying to cram that whole concept into "wiki-verifiability" is also a bad idea. Better to just qualify the idea of "needed publication" right at the beginning. Jimmy Wales is wrong that obvious facts are easy to find cites for. Example: you can't find me any published source that says Charles Dickens' novel The Pickwick Papers was originally written by Dickens in English. However, we all believe it since it's obvious to any thinking adult who knows anything about Dickens, and you could add it to an article without a . Wikipedia takes "judicial notice" of certain non-controversial facts.  S  B Harris 19:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But that kind of fact is verifiable (in the normal English sense of the word) just by looking at the original text of the novel and observing that it's written in English. I don't think the WP use of the term "verifiability" really differs all that much from the normal English use of the term - especially if we write "from reliable sources" after it, as I propose. I see several problems with the first sentence of this policy (as enumerated above), and would be happy to hear anyone's response to those, but I don't honestly think that a jargonny use of "verifiability" is one of them.--Kotniski (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski, to me it seems that your concern with the logic of the word "threshold" could also be addressed by saying that maybe verifiability should not be equated quite so simply to being able to be verified in the one way specific way of looking up published sources. If you do not make this over-simple equation of V and RS then cases like the one SBHarris mentions are resolved. For example a consensus that something is commonly known is a kind of verification which does not involve citing reliable publications, and then you can logically say that verification, in this broader sense, is the threshold. Maybe my comment helps explain how others are seeing the problem you point to. This is for example the reason I find the wording about it not just being an editor's personal opinion so important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes but then you end up with a sentence that says nothing, except that the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia articles is something that we have decided to call "verifiability".--Kotniski (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually there are loads of sources saying Dickens wrote the Pickwick Papers. The only exclusions are for absolutely obvious common sense things like the sky is blue and straightforward conversions and suchlike as in WP:CALC, and every day some POV pusher tries to drive a horse and cart through even those. I find a lot more difficulty with finding reliable sources for things like how wooden floors should normally be treated, there's loads of how to sites but precious little in the way of reliable sources even though cleaning floors is one of the largest occupations in the world. I still wouldn't want to change those requirements though. Dmcq (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, I think you are misunderstanding the example of SBHarris, which was indeed interesting in my opinion. He was talking about sourcing which language Dickens wrote it in. I am sure many of us have had someone tag something like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And I picked The Pickwick Papers for a reason, as the origial written manuscript is lost, so you can't "look it up." By induction it's obvious that Dickins wrote it in English the way he did his other works, but at the same time it's SO obvious that nobody really bothers to say it in print. Thus, I cannot find a cite for it (can any of you?). Another different kind of problem occurs when a popular concept in (say) science is wrong, but so widely believed that even lower division college texts are more likely to have the wrong thing than graduate level texts and journal articles, which have the correct thing. One example I once fought through is the notion that mass can be "converted" to energy, so that the mass dissappears entirely, and leaves just the energy (this is true for matter, but is not true for mass-- they aren't the same). So "verification" in this case requires Wikipedia editors not only to know their physics, but to be able to sort out the graduate level texts and texts by relativity experts, from all the other physics texts- a thankless task. When it comes to definitions, it's even worse. In the article on weight (for example) editor consensus has forced me to live with an article that defines weight in a way that differs from the ISO definition, just because most college undergrad physics texts define it another way that isn't as good (by the opening definition, orbiting space station astronauts aren't weightless, they are only "apparently weightless"!). And so on. The judgement of sources is not a job that can be fobbed off, but WP attempts to do it all the time. We are interested only in sources mostly likely to be TRUE, but that in turn cannot be determined without knowing yourself how truth is arrived at, in that area. That's a tricky and knowledge-area dependent process. S  B Harris 21:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So how about we combine my first sentence above with something about it not being about editors' opinion, e.g. "It is a core principle of Wikipedia that information added to it must be verifiable from reliable sources. What matters is not editors' personal opinions as to whether something is true, but whether it can be supported through the proper use of sources. But I still feel a need to say straight away, either in the same paragraph or just after it, that the concepts of "reliable" and "proper use" (or whatever words we end up choosing to express those ideas) are not trivial or (necessarily) intuitive, and indeed the main purpose of the policy we're introducing is to explain what we at Wikipedia consider to be reliable sources and proper use of sources in various situations. (Oh, and I don't find it at all obvious that the sky is blue.) --Kotniski (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to me to be going along with almost equating WP:V and WP:RS. What is the difference between these two policies?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to me IRS is just one aspect of V in more detail. V says "everything should be supportable by reliable sources", while IRS adds some more detail about what we mean by "reliable", leaving V to address mainly the question of what we mean by "supportable". (Wikilawyers will also point out that IRS is a guideline rather than a policy, whatever they may think the difference signifies.) Are you proposing that we acknowledge any other kind of verifiability which isn't based on sources? It seems generally accepted that we can't ask people to verify something by, say, doing an experiment or even following the steps in a non-trivial logical deduction. --Kotniski (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the key aspect of WP:V is already slightly different from WP:RS. The most important thing is to make sure information can be confirmed not just to be some individual or group's non-notable opinion. So one way to understand why we are not meant to demand proof of widely known things is to say that we should not ask people to verify what is already known to be verifiable. This would make no sense if WP:V just meant the same as WP:RS?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure I understand you - are you saying that there's some other kind of verifiability that we accept, other than the possibility of verifying based on reliable sources? Can you give examples? (I know that not everything has to be verified explicitly from RS; that's why we say verifiability rather than verification.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, the -able makes the word different, and means we do not really have to verify everything. So this makes common knowledge things verifiable, but possibly not able to be sourced from a reliable source, as per the example of Dickens having written in English.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP:V policy page actually has an RS section which is pretty good, in part because it is vague. It says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."That ends up leaving the standards in each field up to the experts in that field. The only problem for Wikipedia is that it takes some expertise to know who the experts are. The idea of "wiki-verifiability" is "you could in theory go look it up and verify that it's true" but the question then is "where do you go to look it up to be most confident?" The rest of the RS section in WP:V attempts to say more on this question, and says some questionable things. What is a "mainsteam newspaper"? Does that mean obituaries in the New York Times are reliable? And how do you tell that you have a "respected publishing house"? I pulled at random from my large shelf of quack health books and found Fit for Life, which was published by Warner Books, owned by Time Warner. It'a hilarious bunch of food combining nonsense, but it sold well (3 million copies already in 1985, which is when my edition was printed in paperback). So is it "reliable"? Reliable for what purpose? The article WP:RS (now WP:IRS) attempts to expand on this theme, and succeeds in some areas and fails in others. If you want to know how complex this can be, look at WP:RSMED, which looks at the problem just in medical material. This is one of WP's better guidelines (no, I didn't write any of it; I do agree with most of it). However, there is no corresponding RS section for the physical sciences. When it comes to journalism, the section in WP:IRS mentions churnalism (please read this), and that alone should either make you nod grimly or your hair stand on end, depending on your prior view of newspapers. But knowing that, NOW what do you do? You're stuck. There's really no way you can see what's going on behind the scenes at a newspaper, the way you can a science journal. Peer-reviewed journals or book publishers like Springer require many credentials from editors, and have many cycles of fact-checking that go on between author and outside degreed editors, before they publish. A newspaper journalist by contrast often will not read the entire article over the phone to the person it's about, or who supplied its expert-information, before print. And so on. Verifiability needs reliable sources, and WP:IRS can't walk people through all the problems with finding them, if they have no knowledge themselves. S B Harris 22:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any need to change this policy: most people can, and do, figure out what we mean.  If people are really concerned about the phrase being widely misunderstood, then they might consider writing an essay to provide a jargon-free explanation of it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually most people do NOT have any idea what the policy means, and there is endless arguing about it. You could indeed write a jargon-free essay about it. And then replace the policy with the jargon-free essay! Two problems solved in one blow. Of course, you're still stuck with the IRS problem, but at least all you now have is one problem. S  B Harris 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems a bit strange to propose that the way to deal with a potentially misunderstood passage is to write an essay explaining it elsewhere; the thing to do is to rephrase it so as not to admit of the misunderstanding in the first place (or at least, reduce the likelihood of it). We can do that; that's what we would do on any other page; why not do it here? Just say as far as possible, in ordinary language free of euphemism and hyperbole, what this policy is about. --Kotniski (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The threshold
Threshold. The word "threshold" implies movement and the beginning of a process. The valuation term "most important" suggests neither movement nor process. I have added the previous wording as a note because the word "threshold" is essential in the editing disputes which I have encountered -- see here; and such disputes are likely to continue to arise in articles about something to do with East Asia. --Tenmei (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that "most important condition for inclusion" was not a good change. The writing isn't as good; it's three words instead of one; and it doesn't conjure up the imagery that "threshold" does. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 22:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please allow me to emphasize the arguable utility of this word, the prospective usefulness of a "threshold" concept which was restored here. --Tenmei (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My problem is not so much with the word "threshold", it's with the word "The". This could imply that the "verifiability" condition is a sufficient one (rather than a necessary one) for inclusion, which is certainly not the case. I don't like "most important condition" either, but I was trying not to change the wording too much. I would prefer, :as I said before, to phrase it simply and unambiguously: "All information must be verifiable from reliable sources..." If you insist on "threshold", then it should be qualified in some way, like "the first threshold", to show that there are other factors besides this. --Kotniski (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this helps, but anyway. Obviously this point of logic is the same discussion that has been going on for some time, and I have recently started trying to understand your concern, and why others don't agree. I think that others are saying that in a sense they agree with your logic, and that this is only one threshold, the threshold concerning "material". That your logic is not obviously wrong suggests to me that this point should not be considered a closed case. But perhaps more importantly in a practical way they are scared to try to define that it is only for "material" because it would seem to weaken the policy somehow? So to some extent the resolution would seem to require a satisfactory wording being that says something like "Concerning X (e.g. "material"), the threshold for...." ??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are on the same wavelength... "material" is a very vague word that I would sooner replace with "information" or "statements" or something, but that's another topic; what I'm saying here is that material (or information or whatever) doesn't automatically have the right to be included just because it meets the condition of verifiability. That's the first condition it must meet (at least, once we've managed to word the condition correctly), but then there are other conditions - it must be relevant, notable, not undue weight, etc. There's no reason to assume readers will interpret "threshold" as meaning necessary condition; they're just as likely to read it as meaning sufficient, or necessary and sufficient.--Kotniski (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your point that way. I think your logic is correct. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition, and a threshold only with respect to one type of issue. I am just trying to work out how to explain it to others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is an idea. If I look at the opposed opinions, others do not see the word "threshold" as a logical breakpoint in a simple way, but the beginning of a process. Or maybe another way to word it is that they see it as the necessary and sufficient condition for words to be good enough for potential inclusion. Obviously people love the word threshold and they also want to avoid a big logical construction like "necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion" or "necessary and sufficient conclusion for potential use given other conditions are met" so I am wondering if this observation about how people seem to be reading it can lead to a small tweak that covers all valid concerns. For example:
 * A threshold for potential 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.

Does this make any sense to others?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly an improvement. --Kotniski (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, any further comments? Is this change acceptable? Why not?--Kotniski (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Readers can check...
...readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source...: I think this should be changed to something like "material in Wikipedia can be supported by reliable, published sources", for reasons I've already given - readers' actual ability to check is not as fundamental a requirement as this makes it seem to be; and the material in Wikipedia need not (indeed usually should not) itself have been published before - what we mean is that it ought to be based on, supported by, published sources. Does anyone disagree, or was this revert collateral damage?--Kotniski (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Any comments? Objections?--Kotniski (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It sounds correct to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry - which version sounds correct?--Kotniski (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you switch from "readers can" to "wikipedia material can", you alter the meaning completely. The latter essentially says sourcing is optional which is a no-go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean - the context of these words is that of a requirement, so it's being required that material be able to be sourced. Sourcing is "optional" in the sense that not everything has to be explicitly sourced; but the proposed wording still makes it clear that sourceability is not optional.--Kotniski (talk) 13:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * for the WP material (contrary to readers) it is not a question of "can" but "must"/"should".--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually i just look at your quote here in solation not where it actually appeared in the policy. If it is meant to refer to the introduction line, it is ok in that context.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only issue I have with "material in Wikipedia can be supported by reliable, published sources" does not emphasize that the source must already be published; articles that have been submitted but not printed yet, movies that are not yet in theaters, etc. are not acceptable. Perhaps ""material in Wikipedia can be supported by reliable, previously published sources" (new word underlined). Jc3s5h (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The word "published" in the past tense means exactly that. Roger (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Nutshell
Do we in fact want a nutshell? Do we want the current one? As I said above, though I can now sort of see why this one was chosen, it still seems to be misleading (by implying that this sentence sums up the whole policy, when what it actually does is state the most important practical consequence of it), and to provide clutter by simply repeating what's stated in the second paragraph of the lead.--Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The main aim of policy writing must surely be informative, and that means informative to people who are clicking around on the internet and do not all have perfect attention spans. I think that nutshells help a lot in this task?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't our attentionally challenged readers just as easily read the first paragraph or two of the policy (which should sum up the content) rather than having it duplicated in a nutshell? We don't put nutshells on our articles, after all. (What it would look like: Italy is a country with lots of art where they eat pasta; Adolf Hitler was a German who did some pretty bad things; etc.) But more to the point, does this particular nutshell serve any useful purpose?--Kotniski (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sure some of them can. :) The nutshell is even shorter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"Threshold" in a nutshell? This is a practical issue, not an abstract one. IMO, this thread wanders too far afield from lessons learned the hard way and the school of hard knocks. Yes, we can all acknowledge and agree that parsing distinctions between "necessary" and "sufficient" are valid concerns, but the "rubber meets the road" at a far more gritty level: When "fact" (supported by WP:V + WP:RS) is defined as indistinguishable from "factoid" (supported by nothing), what next? This becomes an irreducible question, a shared "threshold knowledge" inquiry. The words "threshold" and "verifiability, not truth" are married; and these words offer perhaps the only arguably constructive step forward. Have you not seen this for yourselves? --Tenmei (talk) 00:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The distinction between any sourced statement and a dispute informed by zero cited sources is a recurring problem across a range of articles.
 * There is only evidence that these kinds of disputes are likely to increase in the future.


 * Can you re-state your point please? I do not see how it contrasts with any other position. Or is it just an observation?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry Tenmei, I don't see what point (if any) you're actually making about the wording of the policy.--Kotniski (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have a point; and yes, my point is amplified by a counter-intuitive observation. I oppose any re-wording of which does not include these words:
 * (a) "threshold" and
 * (b) "verifiability, not truth". This is a practical issue which affects day-to-day editing "where the rubber meets the road". This is a recurring problem and it is likely to get worse in the near future.  The pointed clarity of words on this page will only become more important as our project continues to grow. In the alternative, I support any arguable effort to enhance the effectiveness of WP:V as long as these few words are unaffected by editing changes. At Nutshell, our policy can be summarized succinctly: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.  Maybe the simple act of repeating the same thing over and over again is always necessary and never sufficient? --Tenmei (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're saying the nutshell (i.e. the bit in the box that says "this page in a nutshell") should actually be the same as the first sentence of the policy? That seems to me slightly more logical (though just as redundant) - however as pointed out above, the actual wording of the statement is not quite right - firstly it's not "the threshold" (it's not the one and only condition), and secondly that in actual fact we do care about the truth of statements and don't mindlessly copy apparent errors from sources (as "not truth" implies).--Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski -- Redundant? Yes, absolutely.  Your editing experience is different than mine; but that in no way diminishes the fact that redundant repetition for pedagogical emphasis is needed in contexts I encounter.  You seem unwilling to take in this point, but some things are significant regardless of belief. As for your second point, no.  Do not try to "spin" my words to contrive a straw man.  Again, no matter how many different ways I re-write using different words, you seem unwilling to take in this point, but some things are both valid and significant despite your belief or disbelief. The WP:V threshold focuses irreducible attention on the pivotal distinction between fact (which supported by WP:V + WP:RS) and "factoid" (which is associated with zero cited support).  Your "re-framing" addresses follow-up issues. Perhaps this can be explained by our edit histories.  Although my 50,000+ edits are more than yours, I see that the range of unique pages you have edited is a little more than twice mine. I do not want to impede anyone's attempt to enhance the effectiveness of WP:V; but four words only must remain unaffected by changes: "threshold" + "verifiability, not truth". --Tenmei (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean with this "spin" and "straw man" stuff - but you presumably agree that "verifiability" (as defined in this policy) is not the only condition for inclusion in WP? And that we don't want to reproduce statements from reliable sources if we know those statements to be untrue?--Kotniski (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)