Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Replacements for VnT

Jehochman:

One standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Material in Wikipedia must have been published by a reliable source. Editors may not include content merely because they think it is true.

Becritical:

Verifiability is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, and only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information. Whether editors personally believe the information is true or false should never determine Wikipedia content. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion. If the verifiability of any text in Wikipedia has been challenged, or if it is likely to be challenged, the source must be stated in the form of an inline citations. Appropriate citations guarantee that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed without further discussion, and unsourced contentious material about about living people must be removed immediately. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace.

Blueboar: (This is a re-working of the entire lede section)

Verifiability is one of the core concepts of Wikipedia. Our readers must be able to verify that the information presented in an article has been presented accurately. This is achieved by citing reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Editors should not add unverifiable material, even if they are convinced that the material is true. In this context, the initial threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth.

However, Verifiability is not the only threshold for inclusion. There are other policies and guidelines that influence what information may be included in an article. The fact that information is verifiability does not guarantee its inclusion.

Note that the policy requirement is for verifiability, not actual verification. It must be possible to attribute the information in a Wikipedia article to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged (see below).

Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

Too many edits

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

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

Constipation? I thought it was verbal diarrhea (at least on the talk page). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• I've been advocating "minimum requirement" for some time now. B^e——C_ritical 22:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

• JakeInJoisey, the capslock is unhelpful. BRD editing is how all the policies were built in the first place, and it remains a perfectly acceptable way of improving them. There is no consensus or rule that prevents BRD editing of policies. This constant revert-stalling is disruptive. Please desist, thank you.

  "The threshold" (singular, definite article) clearly implies that verifiability stands alone as justifying inclusion, so "a minimum requirement" is a step forwards.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

  But it does indirectly provide the clarification of "not truth" which I feel is needed. North8000 (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

A prune for anyone who needs it

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

I like Tryptofish's "no matter how convinced you are that some information is true, if the material is unverifiable, do not add it." Jc3s5h (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! But credit where credit is due: I cribbed it from an earlier proposal made by Blueboar. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Another absurd contextual edit which I have reverted. Changing "The threshold for inclusion" to "One of the requirements" sets up a strawman ripe for deletion implying that "truth" is "not a requirement". This is getting old. Stop it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jake, I can understand where you're coming from, but I find the forcefulness of your approach here a little bit too strong / bossy. I know this whole discussion has been going on for a very long time (I've been in and out of it, intermittently), but even though we editors can get fed up with it, calling another editor's good-faith input "absurd" is a bit belittling and demeaning. Pesky (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Got the picture yet Jehochman? No agreement on the proper meaning means no agreement on the wording, not that it would be easy even then. B^e——C_ritical 02:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep - no agreement. Serious déjà vu, all over again. Yet another new (to the conflict) editor boldly crosses no man's land, a feverish frenzy of scrambling before the next shells hit, then... WHAM!!! Page protection. It's a lovely little war. Doc talk 06:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I do find it amusing that Doc9871 and BeCritical are talking about editors who're "new" to the conflict as if they'd been here for a long time.  :-) Anyway, the page is not actually protected, and I think the next stage could be an RFC about the obstructive and disruptive revert-stall-ignore tactics that have enabled a minority of editors to prevail over the majority will for the last year and a half.—S Marshall T/C 08:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Hahaha Marshall, you should let the kids have their fun. As to "majority will," policy has higher standards for consensus and WP isn't about majority vote. B^e——C_ritical 18:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Semi-bold next attempt

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

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

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

Seems to me that people are relying on text style to resolve the core issues! Leaky Caldron 12:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Most of that is in the existing text. I do feel that the quote marks in the new text are essential because that point out those words as being subjects in the new sentence. Of course it is more complex to clarify rather than modify those 3 words, but this is a pragmatic solution that as such avoids modifying those three words. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the italics could go while losing little. But may I suggest that we go just semi-bold here? Talk a bit and then do. North8000 (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

These edits are becoming more and more absurd (yes, absurd). Here we have yet another elimination of the contextual "The threshold for inclusion is..." which then goes on to explain the meaning of "threshold"...which is the first introduction of the word itself. Corrected. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yes, I did mention, above, that the definition of threshold was no longer required; I was leaving it until North had another look. You could, of course, just have gone back to where I removed the unnecessary definition of "threshold", instead of changing back to it, instead of "a fundamental requirement" Jake, I notice that you didn't respond at all to where I said:

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

I infinitely prefer "A fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability ...(etc.)" Does anyone want to point out, really, really clearly and unambiguously (so that an HFA editor such as myself can't misunderstand it) what is wrong with that one? [18:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)]

Pesky (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone want to point out...what is wrong with that one?

You mean beyond the fact that non-consensus BRD edits continue to be made to a statement of core policy like it was some type of personal sandbox to be toyed with at will? JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If we don't use "threshold" we don't have to clarify it. I think we just got out of sync. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jake, please don't get ratty. What I asked was what was wrong with the wording "A fundamental requirement for inclusion", particularly as it gets it away from the "once you're past this, you're in" interpretation. I do find it somewhat disturbing that good-faith editors attempting to clean up and clarify and disambiguate the policy seem to be viewed by you as treating it as "some type of personal sandbox". I think you may possibly not have noticed that, from the point of view of the other editors attempting to improve this, it's beginning to come across as though you see it as your own personal sandbox, where anybody else's input is subject to your personal veto. We all have equal ranking over here, and other editors' input can actually help to clarify policy. Pesky (talk) 17:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My strenuous objection is to the fostering and proliferation of BRD editing to the detriment of a traditional consensus building process in the formulation of core policy language. I have made note of this at WP:AN. We need more eyes here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

We do, yes. While I do understand the reasons why editors need to be able to object to policy changes, I can personally attest that that one phrase ("The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth") has been subject to constant revert-stalling, for the purposes of preventing change, since November 2010. In defence of this revert-discuss-stall tactic, editors have cited a lack of consensus in favour of any proposed change. It is true that at the most recent RFC, which was very large-scale and well-attended, a triumvirate of administrators were not able to find consensus for change; but it's also true that less than 35% of editors are in favour of the status quo. We now need external eyes to decide two questions:-

1) Whether BRD editing in these circumstances is legitimate or disruptive; and

2) Whether the constant revert-stalling to maintain the status quo is legitimate or disruptive.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

And a comment: with sincere respect for the good faith edits adding the last sentence to the paragraph, I'm afraid nonetheless that it doesn't work at all. We shouldn't have to provide a definition of "not truth" if the sentence just before it explains it. And if we have to provide a definition of "threshold", heaven help us. Perhaps we should also give its etymology and pronunciation. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying to work out what objection there could realistically be to having "A fundamental requirement" instead of "The threshold". I can't, personally, see that "a fundamental requirement" would be at all problematic. Pesky (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

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

@Tryptofish - Inre your edit...

Verifiability, not truth' is a fundamental requirement, but not the only requirement, for inclusion in Wikipedia—no matter how convinced you are that some information is true, if the material is unverifiable, do not add it.

You are making the same contextual error that all make who attempt to address "VnT" independent of "The threshold for inclusion...". It simply cannot be divorced from its qualifying language without totally misrepresenting the rationale behind its formulation. You are, with your edit and by interpolation, stating that "Truth" is "NOT" a fundamental requirement, a statement which 'The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" in no way implies or is intent on suggesting and, in fact, exacerbates the alleged problem this entire brouhaha is supposed to be addressing. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it better after the subsequent edits? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No...it's compositionally horrid. Do your suggested editing here and enough of this BRD nonsense. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Well Jake, I've read your comments a couple of times, and I honestly do not understand what you are saying, other than that you object to BRD editing of the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Trypto, if you honestly believe that...

Verifiability, not truth, is not the only requirement,...

...represents good composition (to say nothing of the underlying dispute), then we'll just have to agree to disagree. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jake, I honestly believe that I'm being polite to you, and that I'm not stupid. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually no, that misses the point. But despite your invitation to revert, I'd rather slow down a bit to discuss this. The core issue in my mind is that people, when it suits their purposes, can use this to assert that "not truth" says that accuracy is never a legitimate consideration in Wikipedia. (not just that it is not a substitute for verifiability). And a so a sentence which explicitly rules out that interpretation out I think is essential. This is sort of a compromise position with the folks that want it completely gone. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean that we needed the wording defining what "not truth" means? I don't follow how that wording addressed this concern in a way that the change I made does not. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If the issue is someone claiming that "I've got something that's verifiable, so accuracy doesn't matter", then isn't that addressed by saying that the other policies also apply? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

While I strongly believe that the alleged "problem" is overstated exponentially (and is, in actuality, a proxy for introducing OR), I have zero objection to further clarifying the meaning behind "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". However (as I recall anyway), several attempts at doing just that have been rejected by attempts to overreach beyond those parameters. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To Tryptofish That's what I meant. A sentence that can be used to explicitly deflate other interpretations of "not truth" that have nothing to do with verifiability. SO a statement that "not truth means" does that, whereas a statement that just repeats the intent of "not truth" does not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm sincerely not trying to be argumentative, but I'm still confused. Is there a way of accomplishing what you want without framing it as "here is the definition of 'not truth'"? (One of the things wrong with the definition approach is that it reads like a put-down of the phrase, as in "we have to say 'not truth', but we really don't want to say it".) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Not taken as argumentative, discussing things with you is always a pleasant experience, and this is useful. One thing that I think makes what I say sometimes seem like Greek is that I am blessed or cursed with automatically seeing the structural logic of what is and isn't dictated by sentences (= wiggle room left), the structure of their use in debates, and the structure of debates. And seeing this in WIkipedia is the backdrop for my thoughts here. This is different than most folks who see mostly the main thought and the main intended use of what is written. That said, possibly a way to do that would be to explicitly restate the intention of "not truth". Like "This policy uses the term "not truth" is to emphasize that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and likewise to you. I keep feeling like a formulation that defines "not truth", or says how it is used in this policy (as opposed to the plain English meaning of the words), ends up having the effect of "distancing" from the phrase. Could we accomplish such a definition in a footnote? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

My own opinion is that it can be anywhere in the policy and still be 80% as effective. Right after where it is used is natural, but it could be elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

How about this: at the end of the second sentence, change "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" to "verifiability neither guarantees inclusion nor is an excuse for justifies including material known to be inaccurate". I think that might get at the heart of the matter, and it rightly places it in the context of the other policies. It might also justify deleting what is now the last sentence of the paragraph. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That sort of swings the pendulum the other way to having wp:ver weigh in on the side of accuracy. That's a whole new huge ball game. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Too bad, I really liked it! Is there a middle position for that pendulum? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I really really like it too!!! But that's besides the point. That could sometimes put it in conflict with wp:npov. IMHO the middle ground regarding accuracy is is to explicity say what the two oft-misused words ("not truth") are intended to mean in this policy. This eliminates the mis-uses, and leaves wp:ver silent on the topic of accuracy except to say that it is not a substitute for verifiability. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

How about: "verifiability neither guarantees inclusion nor permits including material disallowed by other policies"? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Or (and/or) deleting what is now the last sentence of the paragraph, and putting an inline cite directly after the bolded VnT phrase, leading to a footnote with a definition of nT? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jake, please try to be a little more respectful of other editors, and stop calling (apparently) any attempt whatsoever to improve and clarify the policy "nonsense". I can understand your frustration, but you really are coming over as "bossing everyone around". Pesky (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I would like to put ""Not truth" means that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement;" back in. If my structural points supporting it are not very clear, possibly the more pragmatic reasoning is useful. With the ambiguous word "threshold" resolved (out), I would consider this addition (or something with does the same thing explicitly) , (if it sticks for a couple weeks) to be a sufficient compromise resolution of the overall matter. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yup, I've been thinking the same thing. From my point of view the current version (with or without North's extra sentence) is quite satisfactory and if it sticks, I would support removal of the "under discussion" tag.—S Marshall T/C 13:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Or how 'bout ""Not truth" is used to emphasize that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement" North8000 (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I plan to wait a 1/2 day for feedback and then possibly put it in on a semi-bold BRD basis. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems almost unreasonably sane, for over here ... ;P Pesky (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let me add a plus one to that about sanity! In the time since I was last logged in, someone else has changed the last sentence of the paragraph, in a way that makes logical sense (in that "nothing" covers everything, including "truth"), but loses the intended meaning, about explaining the "not truth" concept. I really don't like that sentence in that form: it just sounds like we are saying "verifiability big deal, respect mah authoritay!" So I would also support, in its place, the sentence that North proposes.

By way of feedback, and not carping, let me float a few suggestions about tweaking it. Perhaps we could word the sentence in a manner other than saying what not truth "means", for the reasons I said above. How about doing it this way: Have the sentence about VnT (in bold) that we have now. Then, at the end of it, go back to having an em-dash leading to a variation of North's sentence (where we recently had an em-dash leading the the sentence about "no matter how convinced you are"). Thus:

Verifiability, not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia—nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it unless it is verifiable.

And the paragraph would end there. My thinking is that, when we explain what "not truth" means, we should do it where "not truth" is said, and that makes it obvious that we are defining it without us having to describe it as a definition. Does that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was good and does the trick. With two folks liking it, and in the interest of keeping this process moving, I think that that meets the criteria for only semi-bold and I plan to put it in. North8000 (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I did it. If this settles in, we might have this settled. North8000 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

May I recommend only-semi-bold edits (talk first, get a co-sponsor etc.) while we see if this settles in? North8000 (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well, this is looking surprisingly good! It seems that we maybe do have an unusual outbreak of sanity here  – long may it continue! What we have at the moment is a vast improvement on what we've had for too long. Cumulative small tweaks along these lines may very well end up with us getting something very much less-open-to-creative-misinterpretation, and which will also keep a lot of people happy. Good stuff. [Pesky offers granny-hugs all around] Pesky (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, we're trying. We might have even achieved a workable compromise on the hot issues of the 15 month debate. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Defining Verifiability

A few notes on Blueboar's changes (which were in another area). IMHO there are two structural problems with the changes. One is that it makes it appear the goal is that the sources has been accurately represented. IMHO this overshadows or ignores the primary goal which is that the material is sourceable. Second is that it makes it appear that the policy requires verification (cites) on all material rather than verifiability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to revert or amend... it was a bold edit after all. A trial balloon, if you will.

Here is the thinking behind my edit... the previous version started out saying: "Verifiability is the ability to cite...". I don't think that is correct... the word verifiability literally means: "the ability to verify" (or check).

Now... If we correct this, we then have to ask: "OK... so what we are verifying?" My answer: We are verifying a statement made in Wikipedia, by demonstrating that the statement accurately reflects what is said by our sources. What we are not verifying is the accuracy of the sources (we are not qualified to do that). If the statement does not accurately reflect the sources, then we must either a) find different sources to support the statement, or b) amend the statement so that it does accurately reflect the sources.

As for your second concern, if you read the rest of the lede paragraphs, any implication that the policy requires citation for everything is quickly corrected and clarified. Blueboar (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

1. Sourcable
2. Sourced if challenged or likely to be challenged

On the second point, I would respectfully argue that the lead of the lead should be a summary (or short version) of what follows, not something that is "corrected" by what follows. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes... I am questioning whether these two attributes should continue to be seen as being the "meaning" of Verifiability. I absolutely agree that these two attributes are important... but I think they are how we demonstrate Verifiability... they are not the definition or "meaning" of Verifiability.

I suppose what I am getting at is that we need to answer: "What is verifiability, and why is it required"... before we jump to answering: "How do we demonstrate verifiability?"

On the second point - The lede is more than the first few sentences... "what follows" is still part of the lede. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I note you reverted... no problem. I was actually thinking of self-reverting anyway... The direction I was headed in obviously needs more discussion. (and since a new section has been started for such a discussion, below... let's continue there.) Blueboar (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability case at the Mediation Cabal

Further to the current thread on the dispute resolution noticeboard, I have opened a case at the Mediation Cabal about Wikipedia:Verifiability. The aim of this mediation is to resolve both the dispute over the "under discussion" tag, and the wider dispute over the "verifiability, not truth" wording. Please have a look at the case page for more details - it is located at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability. Everyone is very welcome to participate. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I signed in supporting and accepting it, and also said I retain hopes for a faster resolution on another track and intend to continue those efforts. North8000 (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your faster resolution may work as a stop-gap... but I'm not sure it can replace the gradual discussion between many participants which Stradivarius has initiated. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have some thoughts on that but let's just see what happens. Roughly speaking I think that both processes are good and worth doing and I'd support and participate in both. But if a faster one succeeds, labeling it as a "stop gap" would mean that its not settled and still "under discussion" for the entire period of Mr. Stradivarius's initiative. North8000 (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Anything with "stop" in it is good, here. ;) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as people are discussing it, either here or on the mediation page, I would have thought that yes, it is still "under discussion". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

We'll just see what happens in the next few days. Will be simpler to discuss the possibilities once we know that. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

How WP:REDFLAG is misused to delete content and sources that support a minority view.

WP:REDFLAG: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources"

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

Example:

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

• A self published video hosted on a NASA server explicitly stating that NASA researchers are working on the topic [1]
• An interview with a chief scientist from NASA explicitly stating that research is ongoing. interview transcript
• A patent on the subject filed by those NASA researchers. [2]
• 2 NASA technical memoranda describing experiments on the topic [3], [4]
• A peer reviewed paper mentioning among others experiments conducted by NASA researchers [5]
• Multiple presentations from those NASA scientists stating the research from NASA server, per Freedom of Information Act request by NewEnergTimes.com
• NASA website explicitly mentioning the topic [6]
• Secondary sources (russian news outlet) mentioning NASA research on LENR: [7], [8]
• A few secondary sources commenting on the NASA video.

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

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

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

step 2) the provided sources are not high-quality

Questions:

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

--POVbrigand (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• For the benefit of other editors: LENR stands for Low Energy Nuclear Reactions, which is either exciting new cutting-edge research in cold fusion, or else a theory based on results other experimenters have not been able to replicate, depending on who you believe.

  "NASA researchers are working on LENR" is not an appropriate claim to make because it misleadingly implies that NASA endorses LENR research. This is far from the case. It would be accurate to say that certain scientists who are involved with NASA are involved in LENR research in their spare time. The question is where you should say it: in the main cold fusion article or in a separate article about LENR? I would suggest the latter for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

direct quote from video: "Researchers at NASA Langley Research Center are working on ...."

Separate articles are denied for being POV-forks. [9] --POVbrigand (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sure the video does say that. Videos don't have a NPOV policy. What we should say is that some scientists who are involved with NASA are also working on LENR. As for "separate articles are denied for being POV-forks", I suggest discussing the matter with JzG, and with the wider community if JzG proves to be intransigent.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. It was not my intent to discuss the actual content dispute here. I really wanted to highlight how REDFLAG can be misused and discuss how the wording of the policy could be improved.

If you want to help us out on the content dispute, please drop by the cold fusion talk page.

Uh, what is JzG ? --POVbrigand (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• JzG is the name of the administrator who protected the redirect at Condensed matter nuclear science, which you linked to above. What change to REDFLAG do you propose?—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What to change ? I guess, two things:

• 1) Exceptional claim - REDFLAG does not apply to an existing significant minority POV. The way I see it is that REDFLAG is for something contrary to expectation. I have heard "REDFLAG" several times when editing in minority view content in 'cold fusion'. It seems that some editors believe that any minority view raises REDFLAG and thus needs "high quality" sources.
• 2) define high quality - A reliable WP:SELFSOURCE is "high-quality". The demand for reliability is raised to absurd levels. Many times I have heard that only peer reviewed papers from top notch (ie high indexed) scientific journals is good enough to explain minority view. Some editors argue that a journal that published minority view papers is not reliable. --POVbrigand (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Concept - "an idea, esp an abstract idea"

Where did concept come from in the opening line? Verifiability is a core content policy, not a concept. A concept can often be regarded as abstract. If we cannot get the opening line right then I suggest we leave the rest of it well alone. The latest edits add nothing to the clarity and in some respects make it worse. Leaky Caldron 17:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I came up with that wording in a recent bold edit (feel free to amend). See WT:Verifiability#Defining Verifiability (above) for more discussion about that bold edit.

I was attempting to better define what the term verifiability means and why it is conceptually important (ie why we think it is important enough to have a policy about it). I was not making a statement about the specific Wikipedia policy named "Verifiability". That said, I can understand the confusion... perhaps it would help if we distinguish the policy {ie: "Wikipedia:Verifiability") from the concept behind the policy (the concept of "verifiability") Blueboar (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, with a couple of us having issues with it, I think I might take you up on you gracious invitations to revert. Your concept may indeed be better, but I think that it would represent a real change in the policy rather than summarization of it. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem... I was thinking of self reverting anyway... it is obvious that the direction I was headed in needs more discussion. Blueboar (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Also I would probably argue that LeadDogSong's edit sort of changes it away from the policy definition of verifiability to a more general-concept one. But that is not one of the areas of dispute and I'm more focused on getting the disputed areas resolved. North8000 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Given how minor the two things I raised are, and what I take as one user's agreement or at least lack of objection, I'm going to make those two changes, in the spirit of "semi-bold" suggested above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but someone else has reverted most of the recent edits. The revert, to what looks to me like an arbitrary place in the edit history, seems rather disruptive to me, especially since the editor apparently has refused to participate in the mediation. I'm still waiting for an explanation here in talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that was revert made many changes at once on discussed items, i.e too many things at once. I think that the reverts should be on a semi-bold basis, or at least be of individual edits. I plan to revert the revert. North8000 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Absent an explanation here from that other editor – and I think there has now been enough time – I want to say very clearly on the record that I support your revert of the revert. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Very good, thanks. I just couldn't see the reasoning behind your revert. Pax! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Procedures to detect demonstrable untruths

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

Do editors' views about truth ever matter?

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

Comparing some recent versions of the intro:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's just that wp:ver has contained that troublesome t-word for a long time, though in a negative context: "verifiability not truth". This is the page people are likely to go to, to see whether or not WP thinks editors' views about truth matter... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It's just that wp:ver has contained that troublesome t-word for a long time, though in a negative context: "verifiability not truth".

That is simply factually incorrect and a self-serving misrepresentation by those who would, ultimately, delete the reference itself. The "context" in which "not truth" is referenced is as follows...

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiabilty, not truth

One cannot, legitimately anyway, isolate "verifiability, not truth" from its qualifier "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is..." without fundamentally altering and disregarding both the etymology and intent of the construct itself. Not that it will matter at all in this BRD edit fest (oops, excuse me...it's "semi-BRD"...a bit like only half pregnant?) of core WP:POLICY that patently eschews the guidance of WP:CONLIMITED and is now being forum shopped (see mediation proposal) as this assault on the core policy amendment process continues. Thusly, ANY substantive changes made to WP:V in defiance of normal process are not only disruptive but, in fact, illegitimate per WP:CONLIMITED. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

JakeInJoisey, if I hear you right, you are basically saying that the "not truth" phrasing (without the new clarification) created additional meanings unrelated to verifiability, and unrelated to what is in the body of the verifiability policy. And so that clarification that the reason for the "not truth" wording is to reinforce the verifiability requirement is not proper. (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

...if I hear you right, you are basically saying...

What I am saying is that existing WP:V core policy language ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.) has been altered by BRD editing contrary to the guidance of WP:CONLIMITED. That much is quite clear. Whether the WP community will countenance this activity or not remains to be seen.

...that the "not truth" phrasing...unrelated to what is in the body of the verifiability policy.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" remains in the "body of the verifiability policy" and has simply been edit-warred into current non-existence unless, of course, BRD editing is now an acceptable methodology for implementing a substantive change in core policy. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

To answer the question... When making decisions about what goes into WP, does it ever matter what editors think the truth is? - simple answer: "No, never". However, what reliable sources think the truth is does matter. Our job is to accurately present what the sources say, in our own words. The problem is that sources can sometimes disagree about what the truth is. When this occurs, our job is to accurately present the disagreement between the sources, attributing the various views of the truth to those who hold it, and giving each view of the truth its due weight. So... when holding a discussion about the truth of some fact, we should never argue: "this is true/untrue"... but rather we should argue "According to sources X,Y and Z, this is true/untrue" (and then discuss how much weight to give these sources). Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that such is not categorically true. For example, that editors agree that something clearly is in error (let's say an obviously implausible number), and decide to just leave it out. But, either way, I don't think that that is a wp:ver topic. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is an improvement worth waiting for. [10]. It uses the English language with some aplomb, and removes the crucially flawed phrase "Not Truth", which ought never to be in a policy page to be perused by those seeking advice and seeking not for confusion to be compounded. Next, those editors who are unable to see that the phrase "Verifiability is an ability???" is contrary to common sense and thus keep restoring such a solecism, need perhaps to take a couple of days to think about this, and say goodbye to the comfort of such an anachronistic non-sequitor. Peace! NewbyG ( talk) 15:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

This might allow you to better deal in the next paragraph with issues of where editors believe that information in a source appears to be in error, because you are not in the first paragraph making a contrast between "verifiablility" and "truth". Apologies if this has been discussed before. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"have you ever tried taking out the word truth completely"... yup... and a lot of people objected. That is the hang-up. The community is fairly evenly divided over that one word. About a third insist on having it remain in the policy... about a third insist on it being removed from the policy... and about a third are willing to consider taking it out if an agreeable alternative can be found (however, they can't agree on any of the suggested alternatives). Stalemate. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

@Elen: OMG! Yes, discussed before. It's basically at the root of all of the stuff going on here. In the last site-wide RfC, there was a lot of sentiment that "not truth" ought to be retained, and I would say that the three admins who closed the RfC concluded that the consensus was that it should stay. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember that, as I recall Blueboar and I went to some effort to get the history right in the September RfC introduction—there was a previous RfC that deprecated VNT to a footnote and that result was a 50/50 split.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you guys agree the text first please

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

Sounds like a good approach, and agreed. At least to propose and talk for a day or 2 and see if there is opposition etc. before making even a small change. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be really good if you guys could all agree to it. It's confusing to other users when the text keeps changing rapidly. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is OK for us to make the occasional bold edit... as long as we all hold ourselves to a broad based one-revert rule. If someone reverts a bold edit that you like (whether you made the edit or not), or states an objection to it... STOP... go to the talk page and discuss. The flip side of this is for everyone to resist making such quick reverts. Before you revert or object, take a little bit of time to seriously think about the bold edit, and consider whether it might actually be an improvement (or at least heading us in the direction of improvement). Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure the multiple tweaking of every edit is helping either. Really, anything that slows down the rate of edits is a good thing in this context.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Two minute revert. There can be no progress away from solecism under these circumstances, no progress at all. Bold editing works everywhere, but not here, user:Elen of the Roads is correct, there is too much editing, too much reflex reverting, and far too little thinking. NewbyG ( talk) 15:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Do not ever accuse me of reflex reverting and too little thinking. I make edits based on merit or consensus. Your's had no merit, so I reverted it. Leaky Caldron 15:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have locked the page in whatever version it was at as at the timestamp. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the biggest problems we seem to be encountering here is that some people "revert on sight" simply because it wasn't discussed first, without any pause for thought whatsoever (apparently) as to whether or not there is anything actually wrong with that edit. This is one of the things that really has to stop; an edit should not be reverted "just because", and when there is nothing wrong with it. Pesky (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted "on site" because it was crap. I did not do it without pause, I did it after I had long enough to evaluate it - approximately 10 seconds. It was a semi-incoherent ramble. I was dishonest in my edit summary - perhaps to save the feelings of the editor. That was a mistake on my part for which I apologise. I should have just called in a crap change. Leaky Caldron 19:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverts to the project page in the last 50 edits

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [13]
4. [14]
5. [15]
6. [16]
7. [17]
8. [18]
9. [19]
10. [20]

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

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

Page protected

• Page protected, in the "wrong version", all good. NewbyG ( talk) 15:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it added a bunch of unnecessary words that added nothing to the sum total of understanding of that particular sentence over its preceding, shorter and clearer version. In other words you made a poor change and I reverted it. Leaky Caldron 16:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It may not have added to the sum total of your understanding, but it had the virtue of not being wrong. Verifiability is the property of that which is capable of being verified, not the ability of the verifier. Nowadays, most people do not care about grammar, punctuation, and the proper meaning of words, but I hope that at least some of you care enough to attempt to get it right. Vesal (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone can agree that the word "verifiability" literally means "the ability to verify". The problem lies in confusion and disagreement over what we are verifying, and who is performing the verification. Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Well there's one source of confusion. The word "verifiability" does not literally means "the ability to verify". I would think that more would be in agreement with "verifiability is the state or condition of being able to be verified"- that is, it is the material used which is verifiable, not the editors who are verifiable, or have the ability to be verified! . Have no idea what words would be used to convey " the ability to verify". Perhaps editors and readers are provided with the opportunity to verify that the material is verifiable material? Bit long and twisted. though. Cheers NewbyG ( talk) 17:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is very difficult to define verifiability in a way that is not twisted. The best I can come up with is this: "Verifiability is a property of such material in Wikipedia articles which can be directly supported by reliable sources." Using a proper definition would end up being even more cumbersome. Maybe starting by saying verifiability is a core policy/concept isn't such a bad idea after all. Vesal (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, starting by saying verifiability is a core policy/concept seemed a smooth way of beginning the lead section, and that version was going somewhere, before the reverting mulched it. NewbyG ( talk) 18:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Back to discussion

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

You guys didn't come to a common understanding of what VnT is supposed to mean did you? If not I'll stay away and let you stew till you come to your senses (: B^e——C_ritical 18:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but ...

What we currently have actually doesn't look too bad! Pesky (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Er, no, the page is currently protected in the "wrong version". To say that "Verifiability is the ability .. to verify" is syntactically incompetent, thus misleading, therefore inappropriate for a policy or guideline. NewbyG ( talk) 18:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO it is correct with the respect to the wikipedia definition of verifiability. Also syntactically correct if one recognizes that it is defining wp:verifiability not the word verifiability. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the good compromise version that can settle this is what is currently in there. It contains the changes that had a mini-consensus here, plus some very minor tweaks, and the larger changes that were bold (vs. semi-bold) have been reverted. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No,we are not being asked to provide a dictionary definition of the word "verifiability".We áre being asked not to use a common word in the English language in a non-sensical way. That is the way of the Red Queen. That is still syntactically incoherent. If we define Wikipedia/Verifiability as "Verifiability-not Truth" that gets us nowhere but a logical short circuit and conumdrum = bad. NewbyG ( talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed edit

Verifiability, not perceived truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Perceived truth, in itself, is not an element for consideration as to whether content satisfies WP:V. No matter how confident one might be that some content is true or untrue, verifiability is solely predicated upon the provision of WP:V,19:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC) WP:RS sourcing.

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

Agree. Nicely done. B^e——C_ritical 19:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Verifiability, not perceived truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. Perceived truth, in itself, is not an element for consideration as to whether content satisfies WP:V. No matter how confident one might be that some content is true or untrue, verifiability is solely predicated upon the provision of WP:RS sourcing.

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

• No objection to that edit from me.—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the first bit... The original intent of VNT was to say that unverifiable material should not be added... even if it IS true.

The example given at the time that VNT was first coined was this: An editor holds a conversation with Steven Hawking in which Hawking says "I think such-and-such theory is rubbish". The editor knows that Hawking said this (the editor was present when Hawking said it, after all). The fact that Hawking said it isn't a matter of "perceived" truth... Hawking actually did say it.

However, even though this fact is true, we still can not include this fact in Wikipedia. The reason why it can not be included is because it is unverifiable. The reader can not verify that Hawking said "I think such-and-such theory is rubbish".

The scenario in the example has nothing to do with the "perception" of truth... instead it has everything to do with the unverifiability of the actual truth. Blueboar (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have no way of knowing if it is the actual truth or not in this case. Hence it is what the particular editor percieves to be true, based on his real life experience in this example. Even in the case you talk about with Stephen Hawking the person involved may have misheard, hence percieved truth yet again. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps JakeInJoisey's proposed edit could be improved by saying "Neither perceived truth nor personal experience are elements for consideration"? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Agree with Blueboar... and notice that his example could be about an untruth to, so we need to have it as both truth and falsehood.

Truth or falsehood is not in itself an element for consideration as to whether content satisfies WP:V. No matter how confident one might be that some content is true or untrue, verifiability is solely predicated upon the provision of WP:RS sourcing.

B^e——C_ritical 20:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Verifiability, not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia—nothing (such as perceived truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement.

• And leave the other sentences in the first paragraph as they now are. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That sentence reads like "Verifiability, not truth" is a fundamental requirement, so to remove the "and" requires a re-write of the sentence.  Also, as a general rule, parenthetical material in technical writing is incorrect writing.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about the parentheses, at least in this case. I'd be happy to change them to commas instead. But I don't think anyone would be confused by the absence of "and". It's just saying that verifiability is a fundamental requirement and truth isn't. Keep in mind that the page long said that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I like the "perceived truth" idea. Commas rather than parentheses, yes. My ideal policy page, whichever policy it is, would have the plainest, simplest, easiest-to-understand wording that was humanly possible. If something can be said clearly in two syllables rather than five, and in language which is within the grasp of both pre-University and ESL editors, it's going to be understood by far more people, with far less explanation or expansion. Something to aim for. Pesky (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth

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

Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not whether editors believe the information to be true or false.

B^e——C_ritical 23:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think there are several very good points in JakeInJoisey 's proposed wording:

• "perceived truth" is a good expression to include, though we probably don't need to say it twice.
• And the point made in the final sentence – that verifiability depends only on whether there is a source – is an important thing to say in the page about verification.

Though it's true that JakeInJoisey 's wording is convoluted – I don't think the word "predicated" helps! How about this…

Verifiability, not truth, is a fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Neither perceived truth nor personal experience is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced one might be that some content is true or untrue, its verifiability depends only on whether or not it has a reliable published source.

Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If we have to keep the VnT phrase, then Kalidasa's suggestion here is very good. Pesky (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Verifiability is a fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Truth, neither perceived truth nor personal experience, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you might be that some content is true its verifiability depends only on whether or not it has a reliable published source.

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

Verifiability is a fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Perceived truth and personal experience are not substitutes for the verifiability requirement. Verifiability depends only on whether or not material has a WP:RS reliable published source.

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

Personally I would support this version but would suggest that saying "No matter how convinced you might be that some content is true" might reduce some of the inevitable special pleading that new editors in particular frequently make when trying so insert their beliefs into articles. Leaky Caldron 14:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the path forward is to put material like that into a content guideline, or possibly a behavioral guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a new guideline to deal with the issue of truth? something that we could point to in this policy? Blueboar (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no vision for a guideline about the issue of truth, it sounds impractical.  As you know, I've created an essay purposed to be a guideline called WP:Inaccuracy.  What I had in mind was to use the existing WP:V policy text and create something like WP:Verifiability, and not truth, and provide a platform to talk about things that WP:V is not.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If they cannot read it quickly in the intro. there is a strong likelihood that some will not bother to read a guideline. New editors in particular can be averse to reading guides. Leaky Caldron 18:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Verifiability is a fundamental requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia: verifiability, not truth. Perceived truth and personal experience are not substitutes for the verifiability requirement. No matter how sure you are that something is true, that in itself does not make it verifiable. Even if you are sure that something is not true, it may be verifiable all the same. If it's not verifiable, don't put it in.

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

Twitter

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

What I'm proposing, at least for NFL articles, is that WP:V is changed to allow Twitter to be a reliable source, assuming the tweet comes from an account of a writer with credentials. At the minimum, this will allow articles changes in the interim period between when news is broken on Twitter and when reliable sources are written about said news. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

See: WP:NOTNEWS... There is no need for Wikipedia to report breaking news as soon as it breaks. Indeed, because we are an encyclopedia (and not a news source), we really should take a slower approach to editing... we should wait until we know more of the details before we update an article to reflect the latest news. Blueboar (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If Hines Ward was truly released yesterday and our article does not reflect that, we are promoting misinformation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, WP:NOTNEWS does not say anything that applies to your view, it actually says the opposite. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not "promoting misinformation" if we wait for a better source than Twitter... it simply means the information we give may not reflect the latest news. There is a difference. Blueboar (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar that Wikipedia does not aim to be, and really can not aim to be a collection of the latest news on every subject. There are sometimes sourcing arguments where there is a grey area though. For example I have seen it argued that academic papers should not be cited until widely cited, even if they are a few years old, written by well known researchers and in a specialist field that does not get cited much. In such cases this style of argument can be pushed so far that it comes into conflict with WP:NEUTRAL. I do not have much experience with writing about current affairs on Wikipedia but it must come into such problems fairly often?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS specifically says "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and the development of stand-alone articles on significant current events." I don't know how you two have come to interpret that as "Wikipedia should not be up-to-date"... Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be fine in this case - Twitter is, essentially, a blog, and WP:SPS says that this material may be acceptable " when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". However, it's a bit of a gray area on BLPs, see WP:BLPSOURCES. Kelly ^hi! 21:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly on the general point: you could use a journalist's tweets as non-fact-checked, self-published, primary sources (at least temporarily, until a decent source appears). However, there are two important caveats:

1. I don't support them for "minor details that don't usually get recorded in the news articles". If the information is not important enough to get published properly, then it's obviously not important enough for Wikipedia to mention.
2. You can't use them for information about living people per WP:ABOUTSELF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Where we're at and proposed roadmap

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

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

What do y'all think?

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

What do y'all think?

I think this entire BRD escapade has been in direct contravention to the provisions of WP:CONLIMITED and its mandate for strong, WP community-wide consensus for substantive amendments to core WP policy. Any substantive edits subsequent to the prior RfC determination and closure are, therefore, illegitimate, constitute disruptive editing of Wikipedia core policy and seriously damage the integrity of this entire project. JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jake, can you suggest an alternative road map for ending the endless debate? For example, do you favor continuing Mr. Stradivarius attempt at Mediation? Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jake, can you suggest an alternative road map...

"Alternative road map'? The "alternative road map" is the same that has always existed...the presentation of suggested amendments and solicitation of broad-based WP community support for any substantive change to WP core policy. It is this insufferable BRD editing that is the "alternative road map".

...do you favor continuing Mr. Stradivarius attempt at Mediation?

To "mediate" exactly what? Some ad hoc dispensation from consensus core policy process to accommodate what I perceive to be editorial petulance? That's forum shopping and nothing I'm inclined to enable via personal participation. A process for the legitimate amendment of core policy is readily available via system wide RfC. Use it. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jake, the whole point of Stradivarius' plan is to do an RfC. For RfC to happen, you need proposals for people to comment about. The idea of the mediation to make a list of options for comment in the RfC. Please read Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Mediation_agenda.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I also support Mr. Stradivarius attempt. When I signed on I said I agree, support and would participate, but still hope for a faster solution. North8000 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jake, the whole point of Stradivarius' plan is to do an RfC.

While "mediation" might be a requirement for those whose, IMHO, nuanced hair-splitting and, perhaps, personal agendas has incessantly fed this recent spate of BRD editing, my objection has been and continues to be twofold...the first of which is the willful abrogation of the WP consensus process now evidenced in the edit-warred and force-fed amended WP:V language. Secondly, I, and many other editors who were too fed up with this adulterated process to continue participation either here OR in "mediation", are of the opinion that this is a "solution" looking for a highly overstated "problem" which proponents for change generally have some difficulty effectively demonstrating. In fact, I share the opinion that this is, in effect, an attempt to elevate WP:OR at the expense of a significantly weakened WP:V much to the eventual detriment of this project. Perhaps the restoration of pre-existing and demonstrably stable WP:V language might effect the return of some of those voices, but there is nothing, at least for me, in "mediation" save for "concession"...a concession to compromise language I, and others of my persuasion, have already made here. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jake, every time that you write you are insulting the people who are trying to move this forward, and bashing any process that isn't total gridlock. Further, the fact that you are accusing people of "an attempt to elevate WP:OR" indicates to me that you have no idea what has been going on here. Absolutely keeping the verifiability requirement and preventing OR is one thing that EVERYBODY here has agreed on all along. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Jake, every time that you write you are insulting the people who are trying to move this forward,...

And the methodology employed by "forward movers" is an "insult" to the WP consensus process for amending core policy.

Absolutely keeping the verifiability requirement and preventing OR is one thing that EVERYBODY here has agreed on all along.

Then I must have been reading another TLDR where words and phrases such as "truth", "verifiability, not truth" and "not truth" appear to be both a frequent topic of discussion and editorial agita. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you just didn't read them closely and then derived a mistaken impression from them. This is important because strongly excluding OR is an area where everybody AGREES with you, so "resolving" that is just a matter of clarifying that. North8000 (talk) 22:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Then, as you're apparently ambivalent as to the propriety of BRD editing having already changed what was once-stable WP:V language into this current rendition of WP:V du jour, I'll await the product(s) of the "forward mover" mediation (I'm for status quo...or was anyway) to see just how strongly this purported sentiment for OR exclusion is represented. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

On your fist sentence, that's a different topic. On your last sentence, I'm confident that you would be pleasantly surprised, as all of the active participants have agreed on that all along. North8000 (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is one of the core concepts of Wikipedia. Our readers must be able to verify that the information in an article has been presented accurately. Editors provide them this ability by citing reliable sources that directly support all the information in an article. Since other policies and guidelines also influence content selection, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Verifiability, not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; nothing is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it unless it is verifiable.

1. [21] NewbyG ( talk) 16:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What's BRD?--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD Leaky Caldron 16:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Well, I agree that BRD is not the way forward. Regarding your suggestion that the version in place is "an accepted compromise version" -- accepted by who? Was the page locked because it was stable, or because it was unstable? I agree with Stradivarius and with Jake that an RfC is the way to go, for a verifiable consensus about verifiability. I think we should consider not only taking a break from BRD, but also pausing discussion on this talk page, to give the mediation a chance to work. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It was locked in because it was unstable with too many friendly changes rather than a dispute. What I meant is that seemed OK with the active folks regarding (ONLY) the hot issues. I know that there lots of different thoughts and ideas with respect to the wording. And, of course, each of these is a thought that the current wording should be changed. To me that looks like a 1 year project that has nothing to do with the hot dispute. I was looking for a shortcut to see if the hot dispute is settled, see if the wording that settled it is stable, then take the tag off, then move on to those other zillions of ideas for improvement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... North, given that we have had no less than nine different proposals for wording and re-wording the "hot issue" VNT sentence since the page was locked ... I'd say there is still a fair amount of dispute on that particular issue. Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure which version North means in the opening post of the thread, but I would agree with what Blueboar just said about what we are working with now still being a work in progress. (What's on the page now is The Wrong Version.) As I see it, the roadmap should include keeping the full protection until we really have a version in talk that really has consensus, and continued talk, with various proposals floated, in the mean time. And I strongly support participation in the mediation. Anyone who declines to participate there really has no business naysaying here in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that I mostly agree with both of you. For clarification of MY point, I would say the following. The hottest issue over the last 15 months has been the presence/absence /treatment of "not truth". If I posit the statement that what is in there right now is an agreeable compromise regarding (ONLY) THAT ISSUE, who disagrees with that statement? Please read my byzantine question :-) carefully before answering. North8000 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "presence/absence/treatment". Looking at the thread above, Proposed edit, everyone there seems to agree that the policy does need to distinguish between the terms "verifiability" and "truth". No-one, currently, seems to be arguing that the policy should stop mentioning the word "truth", or that it should talk about "accuracy" instead... That does not mean that the current (locked) wording has general support, or is preferred to earlier versions. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. But my post was on a different, narrower topic.North8000 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A problem that I have had in the last few months is what is needed to demonstrate "not truth", particularly when an otherwise reputable source publishes something that was based on a misleading press release. Am I allowed to use WP:OR to demonstrate that the source is not reliable? Martinvl (talk) 12:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Am I allowed to use WP:OR to demonstrate that the source is not reliable?

Assuming you have no WP:V, WP:RS sourcing with which to offer rebuttal content, not within the article itself. If, in your opinion, the third-party source is "not reliable" in citing the press release, then WP:RSN should be your first port of call. Also, if there is only a single RS citing the "press release", WP:UNDUE might also be a consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research should definitely not be presented in an article, especially to "demonstrate" that a cited source is "wrong". OR is allowed to be discussed on talk pages... so you may discuss Original research on a talk page to argue that a particular source should not be considered reliable in a specific instance. However, without sources to support your arguments, other editors may not find your arguments very convincing. Blueboar (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

When we talk about "Verifiability"... what are we verifying?

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

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

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

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

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