Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence

A proposal to:

1. change the opening paragraph to remove the phrase "verifiability, not truth"
2. insert a new section (as the first section after the lede, following the index box) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth (including the phrase "verifiability, not truth"). 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is in two parts...

• 1) change the opening paragraph:

From: 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. To:     The initial threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially whether specific material is included in a specific article).

The other paragraphs in the lede will not change.

• 2) Insert a new section (as the first section after the lede, following the index box) to deal with the issue of truth/untruth...as follows:

==Assertions of truth and untruth== An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth". Assertions of untruth (i.e., an editor's assertion that some bit of information is untrue) are a more complicated issue. If the dubious information is not supported by a source, it should be challenged; but the question of how to challenge (whether to tag the information as needing a citation or to remove it immediately) depends on the nature of the information (see: WP:Burden, below). If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a neutral point of view (and especially the sub-concept of due weight). Often rewording to present the information as opinion rather than fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information.

Rationale

Introduction The first sentence of the policy currently reads: "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." There are concerns about this sentence, and particularly about the two words "not truth". In RfCs held in April and June, about 50% of editors responding supported change and about 50% opposed. After further discussion, with neither viewpoint gaining a solid WP:CONSENSUS, a working group formed to examine the concerns of those on both sides of the debate. The working group's deliberations can be found primarily at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/First sentence and its project page Wikipedia:Verifiability/First sentence; although a few threads continued at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Out of this working group has emerged the proposal above. It is seen as a compromise - one that addresses the core concerns of both sides. The proposal keeps the "verifiability,not truth" phrase in the policy, but moves it to its own section and clarifies it. It is hoped that both those who are content with the current wording and those who advocate change, to whatever degree, will support this measure as a compromise. Main rationale presentation Background: The concept that truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia was added for a specific reason - to support WP:NOR in saying that material should not be included unless there is a source that directly supports it. At that time, we had a persistent problem with editors wishing to add unverifiable material purely because "it's true" (a rationale commonly used by editors trying to "prove" their pet fringe theory). However, as WP:V has changed over time, the sentence has been moved earlier and earlier in the policy, and it has lost some of its original context. It has taken on meanings that were never part of its original intent. Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that any material that appears in a source must be included...simply because it is verifiable. This misinterpretation is in conflict with several other policy and guideline statements (especially the WP:Undue weight section of WP:NPOV), but examples of this misinterpretation happening in practice have been provided. How the proposal resolves this concern: The proposal adds an explanation that "while verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion", and it notes that other policies and guidelines can affect inclusion. Concern: The sentence can be misconstrued to mean that we may not discuss the possibility that verifiable information is untrue (i.e., that the source may contain an error). Specifically, this reading says that editors need not discuss the exclusion of material on the grounds of being not true, in the same way that editors need not discuss the inclusion of material on the grounds of being true. That is, we must accept what a published source says simply because it is published, even if we have reason to believe that the material is inaccurate or that the source is less than reliable. Counter concern: This was never the intent. We often need to make judgment calls about the reliability of specific sources when it comes to specific information. A source may be reliable for one statement, but unreliable for some other statement. We also have to make judgment calls about the relative reliability of one source when compared to others. As Jimbo Wales puts it, "We are not transcription monkeys." We do want the information we present in Wikipedia to be accurate, as far as possible. Further, as NPOV notes, we cannot omit significant viewpoints just because we disagree with them (or even because most sources disagree with them). Sometimes we should discuss facts and opinions that may be untrue, because doing so gives the reader a complete picture of disagreement among the sources. How the proposal resolves these concerns: The proposed language acknowledges that inclusion of potentially untrue information depends on context. We cannot make a firm one-size-fits-all rule on this. The proposal points out that the question of whether to include controversial and potentially untrue material is a complex one, that involves applying editorial judgment. It points the reader to other policies and guidelines that may help. Concern: Introducing the concept of "truth" in the lede is distracting and confusing, particularly for new editors. The lede should focus purely on explaining what Wikipedia means by Verifiability without introducing secondary concepts. To the extent that it is relevant for the policy to discuss the issue of truth/untruth, this belongs in the body of the policy. How the proposal resolves the concern: The issue of truth is moved out of the lede and into its own separate section. Conclusions: The goal of this proposal is not to change the meaning of the policy, but to clarify it and reduce the potential for real or feigned misunderstanding. The concepts behind the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" should remain part of the policy. But they are complex concepts that need to be better explained.

Notice: A change was made to two sentences of the Introduction to the Rationale on the first day of the RfC. This change is documented here. Also note that there were three intermediate versions of these two sentences on the first day of the RfC.

Comments

Support

1. I obviously support this proposal... I was, after all, its primary author. The rational that is presented with the proposal explains most of my thinking on it. Not only is it a good (and, more importantly, a workable) compromise between the various positions... I think it actually improves the policy by making what I have always understood the intent of the current language clearer. Blueboar (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Support This is a compromise crafted over many months to resolve an ongoing, otherwise unresolvable debate that has gone on intensely for almost a year. It retains all of the intended meanings from the original AND reduces the unintended meanings and effects. I hope and request that folks from both sides of the debate....including those those advocating more or less change...support it as such.North8000 (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   This proposal deals with the largest, most discussed issue. It does not preclude tweaks in other areas can then be discussed later. North8000 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   Support is per the reasons given during the long process and didn't want to attempt to try to repeat here. I'm sure others kept it short for the same reason. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

3. Support as a reasonable compromise and a well thought out approach to address a wide variety of concerns. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
4. Support - HOWEVER, I think the initial paragraph needs to remove the word 'material' and replace it with 'information' (or similar). The use of the word 'material' can lead a person to think that we only accept words that are verbatim from other sources, which is actually against policy, yet it is FAR too common in Wikipedia. I've been involved in too many debates where people argue that "no, the source said 'rough' not 'coarse'" and people spend endless hours debating whether changing a word constitutes original research. But during this RFC, we're supposed to be focused on the "truth" part of the intro, so I guess despite my misgivings, I'll say 'SUPPORT'. -- Avanu (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
5. Support - This version addresses many of the problems presented though I agree with the information rather than material reword.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
6. Support  Balances many tradeoffs, not all of which I agree with, but overall a huge step forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Support, there is still much that I would change (including "material" to "information"), but this is undoubtedly an improvement.--Kotniski (talk) 07:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
8. Support as a major step forward for this policy. This proposal will reduce the potential for inexperienced or tendentious editors to misinterpret or pretend to misinterpret what it says.—S Marshall T/C 07:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
9. Support Wifione ^Message 08:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
10. Support. I had no problems with the current version either, but this is a compromise I can accept. Additional changes (material vs information, threshold vs. fundamental requirement, ...) should be discussed afterwards (but, assuming that this rfC gets support, should stay away from the whole "truth" thing for a long time). Fram (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
11. Support the current wording is simply misinterpreted too often and this is an important step forward. Yoenit (talk) 08:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
12. Support Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
13. Support part 2. I particularly like the part on "Assertions of untruth". The new sentences in part 1 read like a camel, but the intent can be understood. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
14. Support. I've sometimes found myself asserting that although WP:V prohibits us from adding unverifiable information, it does not compel us to add information that is verifiable but untrue. This codifies the need for editorial discretion in those instances. I also prefer "information" over "material". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
15. Verifiability and truth should go hand-in-hand. In the rare cases that they do not, we should not be actively encouraging people to post untrue information. I therefore support most of the rewording. —WFC— 12:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • However I oppose the bracketed bit as unnecessary. —WFC— 18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
16. Support Even though I understood what was meant by "verifiability not truth", it was clear just glancing at past discussions that editors were misreading and/or wikilawyering that counter to the policy's intent. Clarification is always a good thing. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    The problem is, people thought "not truth" = "false" when what we really meant was "neither true nor false." I know some people think we must make truth a criterion to improve the quality of articles, but the problem is this will lead to a conflict with NPOV. NPOV says we must include all significant views. What if a significant view is, we believe, false? I think that the cause for the low quality of many articles is many people confuse "V" for "cite sources." It is easy to "verify" a view by finding a source. The hard thing is to verify that the viw is significant. This is what I think we need to work on! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

17. Support Was tempted to oppose because it retains the Toxic Triad (albeit farther down the page). But it's a start, and in fact quite a good start. It addresses head-on the old "it's been printed in a newspaper so it's gotta go in" argument that we hear so often. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
18. Support. Not perfect, but it is a change in the right direction. Count Iblis (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
19. Support as a good compromise, with the hope that it can be tweaked over time (without giving preeminence back to the too often misused and misapplied 'Toxic Triad' that Boris mentions). First Light (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
20. Support - The "verifiability not truth" mantra has always been the single most idiotic thing about Wikipedia. One of the PILLARS of Wikipedia should be VERACITY — and here we have a very explicit, up front, unambiguous declaration that PUBLISHED FALSEHOOD is perfectly fine. The threshold should be VERIFIABILITY and VERACITY. Period. Carrite (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    The problem is, people thought "not truth" = "false" when what we really meant was "neither true nor false but something else." I know some people think we must make truth a criterion to improve the quality of articles, but the problem is this will lead to a conflict with NPOV. NPOV says we must include all significant views. What if a significant view is, we believe, false? I think that the cause for the low quality of many articles is many people confuse "V" for "cite sources." It is easy to "verify" a view by finding a source. The hard thing is to verify that the view is significant. This is what I think we need to work on! If we really took the time to make sure that we were accurately representing sources in context (which belongs with "cite sources") and that we are verifying that the views included are all of the significant views, the quality of many articles will increase tremendously. But bring in truth and NPOV goes out the window. People holding equally significant but contradictory views may think they are equally true and the other's false!Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    If I may comment: Intended meaning: Verifiability rules as a requirement for inclusion. Truth or claimed truth is not a substitute. But potential inaccuracy of a statement should not be excluded as a consideration when editors are discussing possibly leaving something out. (Recognizing that in some particular situations, wp:npov trumps the discussion and dictates that it stay in.) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    I admire your desire to support compromise. I would support Blueboar's proposal if it were modified. If you are using "accuracy" simply as a synonym for "truth" I fear we just disagree. If you mean that we must ensure that we are accurately representing the views we include, and that we are accurate in our claims that some views are significant and others fringe, I would agree with you, entirely (e.g., it is accurate to say that Darwin's theory of evolution is a significant view, and it is accurate to say that Darwin's view was that evolution occurred through natural selection). But if you mean that we must judge whether an established, significant view is or is not accurate (e.g. "is the theory of evolution by natural selection accurate" or "is the theory of relativity accurate"), then I think you are simply contradicting NPOV - and perhaps misrepresenting how science progresses. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

21. Support - A revision like this has been needed for a long time; this will end a whole lot of senseless talk page wikilawyering. --Ludwigs2 16:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
    • P.s. I'm not thrilled about the parenthetical statement at the end - it doesn't seem to make any sense, and I'm not certain what it is intended for. That should be removed. --Ludwigs2 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
22. Support - Sounds reasonable. --Iantresman (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
23. Support seems like an improvement. -- Taku (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
24. Tepid support. I'm supporting because I think that the clearer explanation of "not truth" is a net plus. I also think that Blueboar deserves enthusiastic applause for devising such thoughtful wording for the sentence in which it appears, and for working productively with the diversity of editor opinions that went into the drafting. I am also taking to heart the suggestion that editors adopt a spirit of compromise. However, my support is only tepid, and I actually agree with a lot of the comments that I read in the oppose section. I see no good reason to move the discussion of truth out of the lead, and I worry that it has been buried in tl;dr. I also think that the proposal has been weighed down with additional changes that go beyond the central issue of truth. I believe this policy has long served Wikipedia very well in its present form, but that this proposal is, net, a very small improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
25. Support - Mainly because of the inclusion of "While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it is not a guarantee of inclusion." in the lede, though I think the whole thing is beneficial. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
26. Support in principle What we have needs to be changed, and the three things that need to be made clear are the three things presented in the proposal; however, the proposed text is far too verbose—a little more work and we'll be there. Uniplex (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    This addresses just the main topic of concern/debate. Other items can then be tweaked after that. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    Yes, the verbosity was my main concern also, and that can be improved over time. First Light (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

27. Qualified support The addition to the lede has the correct intent but is too wordy; it needs to be tightened up considerably. The additional section still fails to address the issue of simple factual error in sources, and, with WP:BURDEN, still encourages the creation of fake controversies by discouraging the rejection of manifest factual errors in otherwise "reliable" (that is, conforming the Wikip's formal standards) sources. Mangoe (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
28. Support Although I agreed with the philosophy behind the original wording, its actual expression caused far too much difficulty. This proposal is an improvement. I shall not suggest any changes to the proposed wording and I suggest other "supporters" do not do either. Refinements can be made after any implementation is done. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
29. Weak Support. The examples show that something about the current formulation of this policy is problematic. It's like the burden is always on those arguing for the removal of well-cited material to prove that it is irrelevant, unreliable, or otherwise inappropriate. However, it is not at all clear where this well-cited is holy attitude is coming from; in particular, I do not see how one can be so sure that "not truth" is to blame. Still, I largely agree with Tryptofish, this is a net plus, and my view is clearly closer to those wishing to remove "not truth" than to those who deny the problem altogether. Vesal (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
30. Support per Blueboar. --JN466 22:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
31. Support While "verifiability, not truth" is a great slogan, it's confusing enough that more explanation is warranted. I appreciate the further explanation of truth wrt verifiability and, in the strange circumstance that someone in a dispute actually read policy, would help. Just lop off the parenthetical statement at the end of the first change. On a different note, I'm seriously annoyed that this was set up as a vote by the proposer. When did we leave behind that other great slogan, "Voting is Evil"? 2009?Danger (talk) 22:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    I don't think that is fair. Blueboar is not so much that author as he is a de facto manager of a very long and comlicated process involving many people on some subpages. I think that the subpages were a serious exercise in good faith consensus building, and this poll should be seen more as a ratification or reality-check for the subpage process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

    Also, Blueboar just put it up as an RFC. Others added the format and structure for the feedback. Not that I disagree. North8000 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Actually, Tryptofish is evil. I made the edit creating support and oppose sections, so please blame me, not Blueboar. And I think that it has proven to be a useful edit. Please note that there are hardly any "me too" type comments. Rather, editors are generally taking the time to explain their thinking. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    I, for one, was glad that Blueboar was willing to do the primary work to create the RfC, and I appreciate his role in getting this going.  It was a decision of the working group to proceed with the RfC.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

32. Support the compromise. Not the most ideal solution in my view but better than the "not truth" abomination. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
33. Support When I read paragraph 1, I was ready to jump flaming away onto the oppose side. Luckily, I kept reading and thus avoided making an idiot of myself. I think the compromise of keeping the wording but moving it out of the lead is one that will help clarify the point for new readers, while still leaving the concept available to this of us to whom the old wording makes sense. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
34. Support. The existing language does more harm than good. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
35. Support As one of the party working on making the policy clearer and with less leeway for genuine misunderstanding or "creative misunderstanding", this is a very good start. We've spent a long, long (and at times tiring!) time working towards an improvement here, and finally come up with something which we all agreed could be put up for a "vote" by the wider community. This baby has been months in gestation - it's time for it to poke its head out into the world now. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 02:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
36. Support. We are concerned about truth - it's just that that concern is secondary to our concern about verifiability. We first make sure our statements are backed by reliable sources, and then and only then consider whether they are true. But that doesn't mean we don't consider truth at all, which WP:V could be mistaken to mean right now. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
37. support not truth helps those who defame wp, dont believe what you read in wp, anyone can edit it and it doesnt have to be true. a clear example of wp being more concerned with the process than the result. it reminds me of a romantic scene where the troops know the are marching into certain death and continue because it is their duty. i also think it is stupid  :) Darkstar1st (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    People defame WP because most of its editors are too lazy to take the time to go to a library and read several books in order to represent the current research on a topic. This is what academics do, and the result is not claims about "truth" but actual well-informed research. "Truth" is a metaphysical concept that people throw around when the believe in something that they do not understand, or use as a shortcut that saves them the trouble of investigating the complexity of just about anything and everything actual scholars study. No reform of WP will be effective unless we distinguish between two very different kinds of critics of WP: POV-pushers who hate WP because it includes views they think are false - this is a matter of faith (even if we are talking about secular claims), and people who recognize quality research. Quality research does not depend on claiming that something is true; it does show that one has read the most recent and well-reviewed books published by academic presses, and peer-reviewed journal articles, and, just as important, explain the views found in these sources in context. I have read lots of WP articles where people cherry-pick quotes from academic sources to promote a view that many people believe is "true" but that distorts the scientific research. As long as this happens, university professors will rejct any student research based on WP. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

38. Support. The "verifiability, not truth" is catchy, but the literal interpretation is not entirely accurate. It tries to make "verifiability" and "truth" opposing concepts, when in actuality they are supportive of each other. We should never knowingly add false information to an article just because a "reliable source" is erroneous. (Indeed if the "reliable source" is erroneous on a certain statement, then the source isn't reliable on that statement, even if it is reliable otherwise.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Not quite. We must include all significant views, it is not for us to determine whether they are true or not (especially when "truth" is a word most scientists avoid and philosophers question). The most we can say is "it is true that this is a significant view," if this is what you mean about mutually supportive. But what we are verifying is that it really is a significant view, and that we are providing an accurate account of it. This is a far cry from saying that th view is true! Do you truly believe that we are supposed to verify which of the following interpretations if quantum mechanics: The Copenhagen interpretation; Many worlds; Consistent histories; Ensemble interpretation, or statistical interpretation; de Broglie–Bohm theory; Relational quantum mechanics; Transactional interpretation; Stochastic mechanics; Objective collapse theories; von Neumann/Wigner interpretation: consciousness causes the collapse; Many minds, is "true?" If one of them is true, the others must be false. Scientists acknowledge that they cannot all be correct. But you think our policy should be to report the true one? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Of course there are cases where there are genuinely competing views in high-quality sources about what the truth of a matter is. But that is addressed in WP:NPOV policy. It's not a matter for WP:V. --JN466 13:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    I agree with you that this is covered in NPOV. But my position starts with NPOV as axiomatic and asks what then follows? My point is (1) V must be consistent with NPOV, and (2) given NPOV we have to ask ourselves, what is it that we are verifying? For me, if we accept (1) the answer to (2) cannot be "the truth." If we accept (1), then what we must verify is that "x is a significant view." It may be a view of the truth (as is often the case with religion, and never the case with science). Some people who are polling "support" are motivated by a perception (accurate in my experience) that most academics do not respect WP. They are also motivated by the belief that the cause of this perception is our use of "verifiably significant as opposed to fringe views" as our criterion for inclusion, rather than "true as opposed to false." I vehemently disagree with this.

    I am convinced that the credibility problem with WP is cased by the fact that very few of our editors take the time to do enough research - which often times must take place in a library - to distinguish between fringe and significant views, and to be able to provide an adequate context when presenting significant views. This is a skill that any PhD must have when writing a literature review, but one does not need a PhD to have this skill (and I have always opposed making one's academic credentials or lack of them relevant to editing WP). One does however need to make an effort, and in my experience a great many editors do not. And academics can see this. Moreover, I am convinced that making "truth" a criterion for inclusion will degrade the quality of the encyclopedia either by encouraging OR or by leading to overly-simplistic coverage of complex topics. We would be much better off if we took more time to provide guidance about what kinds of research are required to verify whether a view is significant or fringe, and to be able to provide sufficient context to understand why people in good faith might have competing views (e.g. why different US Supreme Court Justices hold different views on the constitutionality of abortion, gun control, or torture. Or why equally respected scientists have mutually exclusive interpretations of quantum mechanics. I am not criticizing these articles, just using them to illustrate my point) This, and not the absence of "truth" is in my experience why so many scholars are dismissive of WP. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    The problem here is significant and fringe are not exclusive things. Regardless of how you define it the Jesus myth theory is significant but because the definitions for it are all over the map it is next to impossible to tell if the entire idea is fringe.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    I would rather say that Jesus Myth Theory is significant in one context and not in another - just as I would say that Creationism is significant in one context but not in another. As many scientists have pointed out (Gregory Bateson most notable) context is crucial. Bruce, I think you make a valid point. I just do not think that making truth, fact, or accuracy a criterion is the solution. I think that clearer criteria for significant and fringe views, criteria that make clear the importance of context, will not only address the specific problems people here are concerned with but would moreover improve the encyclopedia in many other ways. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    Several of the examples Slrubenstein mentions are cases where the truth is controversial or unknown. In many cases the fallacy of a statement in a reliable source is fairly clear cut and objective. The latest one I ran into was Talk:2011 Norway attacks/Archive 2#Transportation where a "reliable source" erroneously said that the (hideous) Oslo bombing in July halted all public transportation. Would it have been right to propagate that statement? (In this case the issue was resolved by finding an even more reliable source, but even if not, I would support eliminating any sentences that are in clear and objective error.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

    True and in the case of the Jesus Myth Theory just what the idea even is is up for grabs. For example, take this definition from Bromley, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Page 1034: "This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,...". Even if you ignore the whole story of issue (George Washington and the Cherry Tree is a mythical story of George Washington but doesn't mean there wasn't a George Washington) you still have the huge range of Greek and Norse mythology. Hercules was regarded by Eusebius in Preparation of the Gospel as a flesh and blood person who was later deified and as late as 1919 it was stated "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." So Bromley's definition depends how well you know Greek and Norse mythology and is only regarding story of Jesus rather than the man himself--not very helpful.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

39. Support. The proposed wording is a welcome clarification on what to do with material that is verifiable but not necessarily true. I think that it is a lot clearer on the subtleties of this issue for someone who is reading the policy for the first time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
40. Support. Useful clarification. Murray Langton (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
41. Support I have previously opposed any change on this guideline, which has served us well. But the proposed wording is simpler and clearer, and doesn't confront new users right up front with a basic rule which at first glance appears to be a logical contradiction-- or perhaps the nearest analogy might be a koan. Koans are very attractive as ways of expressing some deeper truth that is otherwise difficult to verbalize, but it's not necessary to have one here. The basic threshold is, after all, quite simply verifiability in the ordinary meaning of the word. If we can not find any information about a subject, even as a concept, we cannot write about it. Everything else is a subsequent step. We need not, for example, consider whether something would be notable if it existed, or whether a possibly insulting paragraph about an made-up person is a BLP violation. For content also: we cannot find some evidence for a quotation, we can not use it. If there's no source for a birth date, we can't give one. And so on, as the basis for WP:OR and much of WP:NOT , and many other fundamental policies and guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    But DGG this change doesn't suggest that if there is no source we can't give a birthdate - it suggests that a sourced birthdate can be removed if one editor says "I know that birthdate is incorrect because they guy used to be my neighbor".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    I do not think it can be read that way. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    Several editors voting support are clearly stating that that is the way they read it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    I don't think so.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

42. Support The proposed wording is more precise and the additional section is accurate with regards to community consensus. ThemFromSpace 05:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
43. Support per TransporterMan. I like how it reminds editors to get down-and-dirty in article-talkpages and discuss the verifiable sources - so they can form a consensus as to whether such-n-such is really appropriate/reliable.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
44. Support While I appreciate the pithiness and power of the "verifiability, not truth" aphorism, it really doesn't belong in the beginning of the lead of this policy page, where the proper nuanced reading of it may be lost, and it is too easily open to misinterpretation. Insofar as the "not truth" part distracts from the intent of this policy page, it should be removed as described, and the addition providing context is also nice. --Jayron32 05:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
45. Support. I think the link to the essay "verifiability, not truth", even the whole sentence including it, is unneeded; but this is still a better version. Congratulations to the many editors that discussed this (I've read once in a while over the months) and then brought it to a RfC. I am learning from you, thanks. - Nabla (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
46. Support. This wording is better. I am amongst those who feel that a further improvement could be achieved by tweaking the first two words, "The initial...". Initial implies a chronological set of steps in editing Wikipedia which do not exist, and the use of "The" instead of "A" makes it sounds like it is even a strict one. During discussion of this draft many people clearly preferred something like "A fundamental threshold..." and I do not believe that consensus has been tested upon this point yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
47. Support.Drift chambers (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
48. Support. The current version is very confusing and is Wiki-jargon rather than real English. The proposed version is still far from perfect, but it is better. Neutron (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Can you explain what, specifically, you find confusing? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

49. Support - a beneficial clarification. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
50. I support the proposal (1) as obviously desirable, and in line with other policies, WP:NPOV for instance. Not everything that is written about a topic deserves equal coverage in Wikipedia; some sources may deserve no coverage at all in a specific context. I have reservations that proposal (2) is adding anything of value, see my comments in the "neutral" section on this one. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    I do not understand how eliminating the "not truth" is in line with NPOV. Can you explain? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Um... the proposal does not eliminate the phrase "Verifiability, not truth"... it moves it, and explains it. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Given that there are only two choices to vote on here, I chose the lesser evil. My own favorite formulation would be:

    "A necessary [but not sufficient] condition for the inclusion of a piece of information in a Wikipedia article is verifiability—whether the information has been published by a reliable source. While verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion. Truth is approximated in Wikipedia articles by following the neutral point of view, which requires that various bits of information from diverse sources be represented in proportion to their due weight."

    Aye, Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    I share the anxiety many people below express, about a major change in policy. But below, Have mörser, will travel suggests that a better slogan would be "NPOV, not truth." I like this. What's more, I think this is a very constructive point, and it is a shame it is burried as a comment to someone else's comment.

    I second "NPOV, not truth" as a very constructive point. I think it deals with a lot of issues that people have with our current "verifiability, not truth" slogan. Nageh (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    That Blueboar's proposal has so much support tells me that there is a serious need to clarify our policies (and as I said before it also acknowledges the hard work Blueboar put into the proposal). But there is still considerable opposition and we are far from any consensus for such a change. Yet, some very positive things have come out of this discussion. One is Have mörser, will travel's suggestion that "NPOV, not truth" is the better formulation of the slogan. Elsewhere, Unscintillating suggests that it is our "Reliable Sources" policy that really needs work. I think that if any changes to V were made in conjunction with these other suggestions, it might be possible to move closer to a consensus. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    In pretty much every case we have talked about here, it's really the formal reliability of a source that has produced the problem. When editors have judged that the actual reliability of a statement was too low to justify including it, there have been objections that the type of material being cited was intrinsically reliable, and that therefore the editor could not object to its inclusion. That's the problem with "not truth": it is being interpreted to mean that editors cannot exercise judgement, because judgement implies interpretation, and that this interpretation is ipso facto OR and thus forbidden, and that therefore the truth of a tatement isn't germane in any way even when it is obviously wrong. That's quite different from what I believe was originally intended: that you can't just add material you think is true; you also need a good, referenced source for it.

    we're getting captured by the obsession with keeping OR out of articles, but the side effect has become essentially a lot of campaigns to keep false or misleading information in articles. The issue is becoming exhausting because those of us who want to produce an accurate encyclopedia and fix these errors have to spend inordinate effort to make what ought to be trivial corrections. I think there is a way to fix this without giving away our ability to reject genuinely novel material. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    The misleading information situation has a sort of a poster child in the Weston Price article. That article has many problems nearly all stemming on how Price's work is being used today rather than anything he himself did or wrote. So totally RS direct quote by Price from JAMA and a 1939 medical book division which would help address many of the POV issue of the article have been kept out under a misunderstanding of what OR even means.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

51. --Kmhkmh (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
52. A reasonable way to deal with incorrect statements in otherwise reliable sources; reflects current practice. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
53. Support A useful and beneficial clarification. Edison (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
54. Concur with the above. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
55. Support My comments on the proposal have appeared elsewhere on this page. To address the concerns of those opposed to the proposal: I believe that the current WP:V (toxic trio: Verifiability, not truth) (1) enables cheap shots to be made at the quality of Wikipedia's editors and processes, (2) confuses new users. It is necessary. I foresee nothing substantial changing in how we edit, resolve disputes, etc. as a consequence of this change. It does no harm. patsw (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
56. Support There's nothing inherently wrong with losing punchiness for clarity on the subtler points. We shouldn't sacrifice meaning in order to get a slogan. SamBC(talk) 12:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
57. Support Good compromise. Salvidrim (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
58. Support So long as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, I agree with Blueboar's proposal. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
59. Support - I've always thought that line could be misunderstood, but never had the time or inclination to do the research to craft a well-researched proposal. Kudos to the work put in by the proposer here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
60. Support - I've always struggled with this line, we can include falsehoods as long as there is a verifiable source is how I have read it. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
61. Support - The proposed text is a clearer version of what the original text is trying to say. The original text may have some sentimental value, but the wording we use in policies needs to be worded for newcomers to WP ... and what they need is of clear, plain guidance. The proposal makes clear that which is only implied in the original. --Noleander (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
62. Support – sgeureka ^t•c 09:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
63. Support - This new wording makes the policy easier to understand and refrains from making verifiability and truth seem like opposites. Chris (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
64. Support. I have not been following this discussion recently, but this proposal seems good to me. I think "verifiability, not truth" should still have a prominent place, but I also think the notion of "truth" could be misinterpreted, since it means different things to different people. So I'm impressed with the compromise this proposal offers. Mlm42 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
65. Support "Verifiability not truth" is easily misunderstood. Moving it later in the policy helps to give it the necessary context to be understandable by a new user.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
66. Support I think the current version is fine. But this version is clearer, and therefore better. LK (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my statement above[1]. I am not wedded to having the slogan in the first sentence of the lead, but I don't like the proposed section on truth since it doesn't explain that wikipedia doesn't care about truth at all, only about significant and verifiable views. It is not the wikipedia editors job to evaluate whether claims published in otherwise reliable sources are true. That is the job of researchers and scientists who make science progress by critiquing the claims of other researchers - that is not what we do in wikipedia. If an editor finds that a claim in an otherwise reliable source conflicts with his view of reality then what she needs to do is publish a research article about the topic, not bring wikipedia in line with their own view of reality. Certain editors are already arguing here that certain kinds of OR is ok and that this policy should back that notion. In my view this argument is 100 times more damaging to wikipedia than the odd pov pusher citing WP:NOTTRUTH in order to include a fringe view. We would be turning wikipedia into a publisher of original thought. Here is the citation I go by in my relation to truth here on the encyclopedia[2] "Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view." Jim Wales. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I highly commend Blueboar in particular for this well-reasoned proposal, but I feel that the current wording is fine and widely understood by the majority of editors: especially if they read beyond that sentence. I still think the only change that might help clarify the strength and meaning of that first phrase might be to put "truth" in quotes, but that was shot down. Doc talk 03:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
3. Opposes:.

   adding "initial". Verifiability is the starting point of inclusion - it is the threshold. After the starting point we have other process that material may encounter in order to remain on Wikipedia, but they are not thresholds, because the starting point of verifiability has been passed. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability" is a simple, clear statement that loses effectiveness when qualified with the tautological "initial". Verifiability is basic. It is the essential and major inclusion criteria. It all starts from that point. We need to drum home that unverifiable material should not be added. People can quibble about the value of the material later - but let's let people know that inclusion or formatting or editing discussions shouldn't even take place without the threshold of verifiability being passed.

   We're looking at the possibility of more tweaks to follow - for example replacing "threshold" (which implies that once you've crossed it, you're in) with something like "A fundamental requirement" (which clearly leaves room for other requirements, but is absolutely ... well, fundamental. Bear with us - these extra things are on our agenda. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

   adding "not a guarantee of inclusion" / "other policies and guidelines". The essence of this policy is that material must be attributable - discussions about how the material is handled, edited, formatted, questioned, etc, do not belong here and simply cloud the issue. It is inappropriate to try to cram the whole of Wikipedia into one policy. This policy page is about verifiability, not notability, which is a different page. Awareness that material may be subject to further scrutiny is covered by the elegant "threshold".

   removing "not truth". The phrase "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is simple, elegant, and powerful. As far as we are concerned, it doesn't matter that your local band exists, and that you are staring right at them: if there is no means to verify their existence, we don't have them on Wikipedia. While I agree that a section expanding on "truth" is worthwhile (and I support that section), removing "not truth" from the opening sentence removes a simple clarification, and removes a powerful phrase. We can change "truth" to "existence" or any other such synonym, if people are uncomfortable with the word "truth", but that distinction needs to be there, and it needs to be in the first sentence. We define things by what they are not as well as by what they are. We need to make clear that truth/existence by itself is not verifiability. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   I believe that the new proposal "agrees" with and furthers all of the principles which you just described. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

4. Oppose per User:SilkTork. Roger (talk) 10:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   This proposal is trying to force this policy to do the job of WP:RS (and a bunch of other policies and guidelines). The supporters seem to be under the impression that this is the be all and end all of content policy. Roger (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Maunus: "I am not wedded to having the slogan in the first sentence of the lead, but I don't like the proposed section on truth since it doesn't explain that wikipedia doesn't care about truth at all, only about significant and verifiable views" Moreover I object to the wording of the first paragraph - what we are verifying is not that there is material documentation, we are verifying that it is a "significant view." Reliable sources (which are typically some kind of publication) are a means for documenting that it is a significant view, but what we are verifying is that it is a significant view. Note I appreciate the hard work Blueboar did and I think that these objections can be resolved with some relatively minor rewording of the text Blueboar wrote. If we can modify the text in lines with these objections - which I think affect just a few sentences - I would support it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   Slrubenstein, you are confusing a Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE) with Verifiability. These are not the same thing. -- Avanu (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   No, they are not the same thing. But V derives from NPOV and they are linked, which by the way is true for NOR as well. I think you are confusing V with Cite Sources. These are not the same. I stand by what I wrote. It expresses the principal that has guided my editing since we first agreed on a V policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   First line of Encyclopedia: An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

   It's a sad state of affairs when apparently many editors seem to think that an encyclopedia is nothing more than a collection of opinions, biographies, views on historic events, politics and popular fiction.

   While I can understand the need for rules focussing on the areas where most problems arise, when "truth" becomes a dirty word for many editors, maybe some change is in order. I was going to comment on the absurdity of "verifiability, not truth" when applied to articles about mathematics, but I'll save that for another time. DS Belgium (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   This is sophistry. First of all, the line you quote does not mention truth. No real scientist claims that they know the truth or teach the truth. Second, everyone knows that if they want to read a great encyclopedia written the conventional way, by actual experts on the topics, they would be better off reading Encyclopedia Britannica. When WP was created, the idea was clearly not to emulate EB but to try a whole new model. As a "wiki"pedia there is no requirement and thus no guarantee that the editors be experts. WP:NPOV was the framework that would not only enable editors with conflicting beliefs to work together, but the principle that would distinguish WP from other encyclopedias. And that principle is neutrality, not truth. NPOV demands that we include all significant points of view. period. Even if we think one view is false, we include it if it is significant. Even if one view says another view is false, we include the other view if it is significant. This is how we achieve neutrality. And if we keep our NPOV policy, then we cannot take it upon ourselves to verify that the view is the truth, and most of us are not qualified even to judge one view as better than another anyway. The only "truth" we can verify is that "it is true that someone holds this view." This is what we are verifying, not that a view is true, but that the view is significant and accurately represented. If you do not like this you should have sought a job at EB rather than volunteer here. And if you want to change this, then we have to get rid of NPOV too. We would have to change it from "neutral point of view" to "truth point of view." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   Seems I was wrong, thinking you and the others were defending "Verifiability, not truth" because it was useful in keeping the wackos and fringe theories out and trying to make WP a trustworthy source. Looking at your user page, I realise you want the opposite, every opinion that is notable should be represented, because you believe in "great truths". And that's why you say "no real scientist" claims they know the truth or teach the truth, yet in the next sentence you acknowledge that "actual experts" would use such judgement to decide the content of an encyclopaedia! Since I don't think works of fiction and arts express some great truth, you see me as an idiot ("I think of those people who would answer "no" to my question whenever I read this passage from Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum: Idiot... How could you fail to kneel down before this altar of certitude?")who doesn't understand a thing ("If the person answers no, I know that they understand nothing."), so there's no use in talking to you any further. I just hope you stay away from science topics, especially maths, if you think formal proofs are based on opinions, and the truth or falsity of conjectures can never be determined. DS Belgium ٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶ 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   I certainly am defending "Verifiability, not truth" in order to make WP a better source of knowledge. Moreover, one reason I think we should keep some kind of "not truth" formula is precisely because I think the real solution lies in clarifying and elaborating on what we mean by verifiability, the criteria for reliable sources (which must include other criterion besides publication or even publication in a respected venue) - better guidance concerning fringe views is precisely one of the ways I think we can do this. Yes, I do believe in "the truth." But for reasons that Jimbo and Larry laid out a long time ago, and that are still central to our NPOV policy, I do not believe that my own view of the truth should ever influence my editing. If you think that is the meaning of my user page. I will not discuss my user page here as it is not the appropriate venue but if you actually cared about what I think you can ask on my talk page. Suffice to make three key points: first, I never called you an idiot and that you feel a need to put words into my mouth says more about you than about me. Second, you clearly do not understand the quote from Eco — the capacity for so many WP editors to believe that they understand what a quote means when taken out of context is in my view one of the major problems with Wikipedia (eliminating "not truth" will not address this problem and I think it will actually make the problem worse). Third, I never said formal proofs are based on opinions, although I do know that they are based on axioms and I appreciate the implications of that fact. Would I ever argue against including in an article a statement like "Mathematicians agree that Euclidean geometry provides a proof for the Pythagorean theorum, or a proof that the sum of angles a, b, and c of a triangle is 180 degrees? No. But – and this is the key point – "verifiability, not truth" in no way can support removing such a statement from our article, and, indeed, our policies in their present form help us write great articles that include just such statements. So I do not think your comment is rational (and no, I am not calling you an idiot), and it certainly is not constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

6. Oppose – to me, the proposed version seems more cumbersome than the current version, and it seems like we're trying to make this more complicated than it should be. –MuZemike 14:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Slrubenstein, Maunus, MuZemike. Obfuscates rather than clarifies, and places undue prominence on whether sourcing exists, not what is verified by that sourcing, if you follow. I would support a modified version of the 1st paragraph second suggested edit, but strongly oppose the change to the nutshell verbiage opening paragraph, which has lasted for many years for excellent reasons - because it is clear and concise. I see no reason to change it so that it is neither clear nor concise. . KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   Question for KillerChihuahua... the proposal does not call for any changes to the nutshell... but perhaps you were referring to something else... could you clarify your comment? Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   This is what happens when I'm editing in three windows while on the phone. Apologies, I have corrected my statement. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks... your views are much clearer now. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

   They would have made sense before, if I'd actually typed what I was thinking. Sometimes I have a brain=keyboard disconnect. Thanks for asking for clarifying so politely. :-/ KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

8. Oppose, and indeed absolutely, utterly oppose. Avoiding the statement that "Wikipedia is not about truth" will open the door to untold of headaches and debates on many, many pages. My real concern is that the Wikipedia community is by and large unaware of a scary phenomenon that is creeping up on us: "we may soon run short of editors who are generally familiar with the policies". In most systems, there are usually underlying processes that drive the system and Wikipedia is no exception. Some time ago I came across a paper based on a thesis by a student about Wikipedia and he had done some studies that made sense. As I recently searched again, I only found a summary of the thesis here, but his main argument, supported by various graphs was that as the number of Wikipages and Wikiusers increase, reality will catch up with us, and he predicted that there will be:

   an untenable trend towards progressive increase of the effort spent by the most active authors, as time passes by. This trend may eventually cause that these authors will reach their upper limit in the number of revisions they can perform each month, thus starting a decreasing trend in the number of monthly revisions, and an overall recession of the content creation and reviewing process in Wikipedia.

   So as more and more IPs require comments, the level of effort to support them may become a burden. If those IPs feel that "they know what truth is" and try to do good by setting the record straight in Wikipedia, the effort to explain things to them will be tremendous.

   It is essential that the millions of new IPs coming in be told upfront that what they consider to be "truth" will probably differ from what someone 3 blocks away from them considers "truth", let alone someone three continents away. It is essential that the idea that "your truth may be different from the next guy's concept of truth" be stated upfront to save us the effort of repeating t again and again to new IPs. I personally feel like a broken record player repeating it again and again.

   And I would go further and point out to the new readers/editors that in some fields "there is no truth". Period. A suitable case is monetary economics where truth is all but elusive. Nobel laureate A says X and Nobel laureate B says Y and usually X and Y are not equal: there really is no "concept of truth" in monetary economics, just ideas and references. And Wikipedia can not even begin to pretend there is truth therein. This must be explained to the new editors upfront.

   We must remind users upfront that Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiability, to save the explanation efforts again and again. That effort is really needed elsewhere: improving content.

   I would, however, also keep something like the 2nd paragraph to repeat the same.History2007 (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

9. Oppose does more harm than good. There is wikilawyering where people use sources to push known untruths. But a much more prevalent problem is editors bickering back and forth about what they know to be true, and never checking what a reliable authority would say on the matter. You're focusing on the small problem to the detriment of the bigger problem. You saw the dam leaking, so you decided to tear it out and replace it with a towel. If there's a problem with the occasional wikilawyer, put an explanation in the body of the policy. Don't obfuscate the intro to the policy which has worked well for years. Dzlife (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
10. Oppose Adds more verbiage contrary to WP:CREEP. The policy should be simplified, not bloated. Warden (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
11. The creepier our policies, the harder it is to edit. The proposed changes do not make it any easier for any inexperienced user to edit, and only add verbiage to be parsed by axe-grinders. No. -- Y not? 18:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
12. Oppose. The possible benefit of this particular addition is definitely outweighed by the negative effect of the instruction creep it introduces. Shorter is better. —Mark Dominus (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
13. Oppose the new section "Assertions of truth and untruth". Too much emphasis on the term truth that would be better referred to as majority or minority viewpoints. No need to open up a remote possibility it will be misinterpreted to squash multiply-sourced, minority viewpoints on the grounds that it is not true. WP:UNDUE already does a wonderful job with only one instance of the word truth. I am OK with proposal in the first part for changes to the opening paragraph. Willing to reconsider opposition if truth is removed or de-emphasized.—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
14. Oppose as unnecessary. The best proposal I've seen was to link "verifiability, not truth" to the essay that explained the topic quite adequately. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I concede that the "not truth" maxim can be taken the wrong way. So can anything if one does not want to take the point, but the point here is clear enough. My real objection is that the proposed new section is a CREEPy digression to wade through before getting to the nuts and bolts of sections on when a citation is required and what sources are reliable. To the extent that issues in the proposed new section need to be raised at all, they would belong in the "other principles" section at the end of the page. ~ Ningauble (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
16. Oppose I think the new wording is less clear and actually moves us in the wrong direction with this policy. This is not the place to say that we don't include everything in every article. And I really prefer the idea that just because you think it isn't the truth you still need to source it. I think the current wording does that better. Hobit (talk) 23:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
17. Oppose. The discussion below (at my previous neutral comment) makes it clear that this would be a major change in policy, wherein a statement could be challenged or removed not because it was inadequately sourced, and not because any reliable source contradicts it, but simply because an editor claims it to be "untrue". This is a complete reversal of the way our policy has worked for many years. I'm shocked that we would trust some Wikipedian's assertion of "truth" as a reason to censor or exclude sourced content, and more shocked that so many Wikipedians would approved of such a change. The Italian Wikipedia recently shut itself down rather than submit to a proposed law that would mandate removal of material based on an unsupported claim that a statement is detrimental to someone's image. But when it comes to the English Wikipedia, do we really want an unsupported claim of inaccuracy to be a reason for removal, as S Marshall clearly supports below? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    I did not say that an unsupported claim of inaccuracy is a reason for removal, and that is not my view.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    There's no change proposed to the policy, just the wording! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

18. Oppose I think you are right Quadel. I think the great danger to Wikipedia’ usefulness is unfaithfulness to reliable sources because we know the truth. This leads to two blights on the project unsourced statements in articles, and misrepresentation (and ignoring) of sources in articles. At least where an untrue statement is sourced, the reader has the tools to review reliability for themselves. Sourcing requires uncommon effort; anything that denigrates that effort should be rejected. “Verifiability, not truth” is a strong reminder that Wikipedians, for all their ego, still need humility. We are not tellers of truth; we are faithful recorders of what others "out there" have studied -- we merely claim to understand it enough, so that we have recorded their (those out there) truth faithfully.

    Verifiability is the ability to verify -- in the current policy, the ability to verify that a reliable source has said something. Truth is not the ability to verify, it has no ability in it - it's an assertion, an ipsa dixit. In the scheme of what editors are doing, it makes sense that we first require them to come to agreement that a reliable source has said something, and agree what that something is (no misrepresentation or mistake because, we know the truth). This is the humility required of us -- we must first take the source on its own terms, even when (especially when) we agree or disagree with it because we know the truth, because in most (all) cases we don't in fact know the truth, and we should in any case assume we and our readers do not, when first approaching the source. Moreover, in practice, and by the dictates of this policy, one editor cannot convince another editor that they have the truth (don't tell me the truth, that's irrelevant, convince me with reliable sources). Only then can editors proceed to agree on correct representation of the source, relevance to the topic, POV and other considerations for putting it in or leaving it out of an article. Unfortunately, the present proposal does not promote these values, it is increased license for editors to promote and propagate unfaithfulness (as if such license were needed) to reporting on reliable sources. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

    "We are not tellers of truth"; true, Wikipedia articles are tellers of WP:NPOV, which is a reasonable approximation most of the time, and probably the only practical one for a tertiary source. A more appropriate mantra would be «NPOV, not "truth"». Plenty of WP:V-verifiable information is consciously excluded from Wikipedia based on editorial judgement guided by WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, etc. So, while the humble Wikipedians may not actually decide what is true, they often decide what is untrue, or perhaps more accurately, Wikipedians routinely decide what information is [probably] far from the truth. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    "'We are not tellers of truth"; true'" Yes, right. As for the rest, you misstate Wikipedia policy; WP:V requires RS; and WP:NPOV is not to be read in isolation from WP:V -- "Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs)

    Which of my statements misstate Wikipedia policies? "jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles" implies that verifiabilty alone may not be enough for inclusion. Which is what I said. Are you saying that excluding sources is not permitted by the WP:OR or by the WP:NPOV policy? I very much doubt that. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

    Where you fail to faithfully summarize policy is in suggesting that WP:NPOV operates without WP:V. WP:V also excludes things from being in articles. All the core policies both include and exclude. Wikpedia articles don't only "tell" WP:NPOV, they also tell WP:Verifiable (as well as, the other policies) Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

19. Oppose. "traditional" working "verifiability, not truth" concisely says what is required. --Philcha (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Current wording is pithy and iconic. The proposed wording is longer, less clear, and hides a significant policy change. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

    Curious what significant policy change you think the editors of this proposal are trying to hide in change? how do you believe this policy change will be misapplied? Crazynas ^t 21:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

    There's no change to the policy, just to the wording! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

    Please do stop commenting on the "oppose" threads with identical messages, Pesky. It's... annoying in a very pesky way. Doc talk 07:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

21. Oppose. We only trust experts to do research, we trust editors to summarize what the experts have published. By "we" I mean the editors, so we could safely assume that many editors can be trusted to understand the opinions of the experts. If an expert makes a mistake, how does it come that one has to rely upon original research instead of finding another expert who points out the mistake of the former expert? My understanding is that according to Popper scientists constantly work to reject (falsify) the work of other scientists. So it is very improbable that the bulk of experts who read scientific papers for a living cannot see a gross mistake and a Wikipedia editor is needed to cry "The king is naked!" Perhaps this is a bit too exaggerated, but I guess you see what I mean.
    
    An example: in string theory there is simply no fact yet discovered, so we cannot say that even a jot of string theory is proven true. As S. James Gates, Jr. said, "string theory is applied mathematics, it isn't physics yet." And we generally assume that physics is the most reliable of all empirical sciences. So there are clearly areas in physics wherein there lies not a single truth, but they are filled with opinions expressed by scientists. All such opinions could be deleted from Wikipedia "because they aren't true". This would mean proposing the whole string theory article for deletion. Obviously, these opinions aren't true, but this does not mean that they aren't informative. Above I have simply bracketed the idea that one cannot prove truth, but one can only prove falsity (according to Popper). The idea is that scientists have to prove the falsity of string theory, this is not the task of Wikipedia. Experts have to agree upon what counts as falsified in a discipline, and we render their views.
    
    By adopting the idea that truth matters, we open largely the doors for relativity theory denialists, see here. There is a whole society of fringe theorists who claim to have proven Einstein wrong, using plain mathematical calculations (often limited to the math one learned in high-school). The same way, all sociology articles could be deleted, since no sociological theory is consensually accepted as the true one by sociologists. And psychology consists of many competing schools of thought, so one could erase psychology articles, too, since there is no school consensually accepted as the true one. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I think it's better off the way it is; since it 'gets to the point', readers don't have to read the whole page just to find the core principle of the policy. WikiPuppies! (bark) 07:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
23. Oppose. The sort of editor who needs to be sent to this page really needs the "not truth" to be in the first sentence and in bold. That's because the concept is so very counterintuitive. I know, because I was one of those editors. I was send here after one of my first IP edits and I really needed to be hit over the head with`verifiability, not truth. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

    Even though I am mildly supporting the proposal, I agree with that, a lot. Assuming the proposal is adopted, I think that it's very important that the new section be easily linked and easily seen. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

24. Oppose on the whole. I would, on balance, support adding something very like the new paragraph without removing not truth from the lead. Let's see how that looks and works for a few months and then see whewther we only need to say "V not T" once. (I say "very like" because, for example, some errors in reliable sources - such as the wrong year - can be so obvious that correcting them and adding a footnote will be sufficient, rather than cluttering the talk page. A good idea, but this is too hasty an implementation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
25. Oh, Lord, how I oppose this idea! The present lead is perfectly understandable, and much shorter, too. Thank you. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
26. Oppose It's not broke, don't fix it. This policy is already long enough without having to add more. If someone wants to type this up in a user essay, that's fine, but I don't think it's a good idea to change the policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
27. Oppose I do not think the proposed change is an improvement. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
28. Oppose Cannot really see why this is causing a fuss. There are plenty of statements that are true but not reliably sourced, and just because something appears in a reliable source does not mean that it has to be in Wikipedia if it fails other guidelines.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
29. Oppose This has always been a badly expressed statement, mainly because there is not a genuine consensus about the policy. My view is that Wikipedia aims for accuracy by means of verifiability, in that statements which are challenged or are likely to be challenged need to point to evidence for their accuracy; in such circumstances the simple truth of a statement is not enough. Other think that nothing which is not cited is acceptable and (at the extreme end) most things which are can be. The proposed wording moves too far in the wrong direction for me and looks designed to merge this policy with RS.--Rumping (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
30. The current form is shorter and easier to understand. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
31. Oppose. I like the idea of refactoring the sentence to deter disingenuity, but I don't like the wordiness (and) (so) (many) (clauses) (in) (brackets) of the above proposal. I would have it simply say "For inclusion in Wikipedia, all information must be verifiable." I don't think it needs to even go into how truth is also required, or how verifiability not truth is key; it just leads the policy into unecessary tangents and repeated clarifications. fish&karate 13:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe the proposed change is a step towards your main points, albeit with compromise type wording. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral (Switched to oppose, above.) I agree with some of this. I agree that verifiability is an "initial threshold for inclusion" (while sometimes verifiable information may not meet other thresholds). I agree that verification is not a guarantee for inclusion (though that fact is mentioned elsewhere, so I'm neutral about its inclusion here). My concern is that the proposed wording intends to de-emphasize the fact that truth is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion -- but it could effectively remove that criterion by basing it only on an essay that will no longer be accurate. See my question below. I might switch my comment to "support" if my concerns are adequately resolved, or to "oppose" if they are not. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but as the primary author of the proposal, I can assure you that my intent isn't to "de-emphasize the fact that truth is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion" (I firmly agree that it is not), my intent is to address the opposite side of the coin: whether untruth is an acceptable criterion for exclusion.

These are two sides of the same coin... The "unverifiable truth" side of the coin has a black and white answer... if the material isn't verifiable, we shouldn't include it, no matter how true it may be. But there isn't a clear black and white answer to the "verifiable untruth" side of the coin... sometimes we should exclude verifiable material that is untrue, and sometimes we shouldn't. It's a case by case determination... and the determination is (in most cases) based primarily on policy concepts other than verifiability. The problem is that the current policy doesn't mention this. It only discusses one side of the coin. The point of the proposal is to address both. It may not do a perfect job of doing so, but at least we try to address it. Does this resolve your concerns? Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if I misrepresented your intentions. I want to be clear here... it sounds like you're saying that there are times that verifiable statements might still need to be deleted based on the claim that they are untrue, and that this wording change is designed to facilitate that. Am I correct in that? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly the case. An example that the working group came up with, in discussion, was the statement that "Pluto is a planet". That statement is verifiable and I can prove it by reference to otherwise-reliable sources, but it's also been false since 2006 when the definition of "planet" changed. The proposed wording allows for that kind of situation, and more controversial ones too.—S Marshall T/C 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the truth of that statement matters, in terms of whether it should be included. It's a matter of the weight of the sources. Certainly statements should be challenged if more recent sources contradict it, if corrections are issued, etc., but not merely based on a claim of untruth. To make a simplistic example, if I claim "Cromulent widgets tend to be blue", and I provide a reliable source, and Joe Blow claims the statement is untrue (without providing contradictory sources), his claims are null here. The current wording makes this clear. The proposed wording, while having some advantages, seems to open the door to the possibility that Joe's claim of untruth has weight. If so, I can't support it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Quadell's comment, "Joe Blow claims the statement is untrue (without providing contradictory sources), his claims are null here. The current wording makes this clear." - Not really. The current wording discusses what is necessary for inclusion, not what is sufficient for inclusion. In other words, the current wording doesn't say whether or not something can be excluded based on a claim like Joe Blow's. The present wording only says that something can't be included based only on a claim by Joe Blow that it is true. Both the current wording and the proposed wording are neutral on the issue of excluding material from a reliable source because someone claims it is not true. The current wording says nothing about it, and the proposal says it needs to be discussed on the article's talk page, with reference to other policies. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposed wording, on the other hand, does address this somewhat... it says to discuss the issue on the talk page with reference to other polices and guidelines. Yes, it is passing the buck to those other policies and guidelines, but at least it is more than is in the current version. Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Quadell, I submit that there are three flaws in what I believe is implied your "Joe Blow" statement. One is implying that Joe Blow could unilaterally remove the statement over objections based just on his claim of falsehood. Nothing new or old supports this. Second is is that a simple "I say it's false" unsupported claim of falsehood is a sort of straw-man rarity....inevitably such a claim includes something to support its veracity. The third is overlooking the more realistic option which is simply that Joe Blow's statement of falsehood is allowed to enter into the conversation (doubtless gauged based on what Joe includes to support his assertion) that the editors are having about potential exclusion of material. Currently a common mis-read is often used to completely exclude that from the conversation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's up to you whether you can support it, but I want to say that I completely disagree with you. Jimbo expressed my view very well when he said: "We are not transcription monkeys, merely writing down what sources say. We want to only write true things in Wikipedia, and we want to verify them." My position is that wikipedians are educators, and there's something sinister about an educator who doesn't care about the truth. We absolutely can, do, and must, make judgments about what's true. Oh, sure, we can put it in terms like "weight of the sources" and try to judge which source is "most reliable", but in fact what we mean when we say that a source is "reliable" or "deserves weight" is that that source is "likely to be true". Thus we put a semantic layer in between article content and truth. But when our judgment about what to include depends on which source is the most likely to be accurate, then the difference between that and making judgments about "truth" is semantics and nothing but. And my position is that we should be intolerant of those who wish to introduce lies into encyclopaedia articles.—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. When we say that a source is reliable and has weight we do not make a judgement about its presumed veracity, but about the degree to which it represents current consensus in the relevant field. I must say that I am surprised at Mr. Wales in my view rather naive understanding of what truth is. To make judgments about what is true is the job of specialist researchers - not wikipedian editors. It is implicit in the word "editor" that we make editorial decisions - of what to include and what not. But editors do not overrule professional researchers conclusions even if they disagree with them, they leave that to the scientific community. You are trying to give wikipedia a function of knowledge creation in addition to its role of knowledge transmission. That could be fine given that that is what a majority of wikipedians feel it should do, but it is not what I signed up for. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, where there's a controversy in any field, Wikipedia prefers the mainstream academic consensus. It's right that we do that. We present the mainstream academic consensus in the simple indicative ("Evolution has led to the diversification of all living organisms from a common ancestor...", quoted from Evolution) and the alternative views as reported speech ("Some advocates believe that major differences in the appearance and behavior of two organisms indicates (sic) lack of common ancestry", quoted from Baraminology). From my point of view, the reason to use reported speech is because the addition of "some advocates believe" turns what would be a false statement in the simple indicative ("The major differences... indicate lack of common ancestry") into a true one. And from my point of view, the reason to present the mainstream academic consensus in the simple indicative is because we default to believing that the mainstream academic consensus is the correct view. But if you take away the value judgments about "truth" from this process, then actually there's no reason to treat the mainstream academic consensus about evolution any differently from baraminology, so either both belong as reported speech, or else both belong in the simple indicative (presumably the latter, since if we don't care about truth, the simpler construction is to be preferred).

This is why I believe the what is truth? view is logically inconsistent and fails to document good practice as well as a truth-based view.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea that "verifiability" does not include a brief review of whether something cited by a source is accurate or not, is and always has been an erroneous POV. Verifiability implies much more than confirming that a statement can be found in a reliable source. It also implies that such a statement can be evaluated based upon other, corresponding criteria, such as the authority of the author, the reliability of the publisher, and the relevancy and currency of the statement. In the Pluto example, such a statement fails the currency criteria. We can verify it, but it is no longer current, and this means, it is no longer accurate. This is very simple to understand, so I am unable to grasp its opposition. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

But it is quite easy to see how editors come to the conclusion that Verifiability is nothing more than confirming that a statement can be found in a reliable source. WP:SOURCES (ie What counts as a reliable source) covers the authority of the author and reliability of the publisher issues but makes no comment regarding accuracy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Abstain. (Moved from Oppose until final opinion is formed.) Verifiability, not truth may be a slap in the face when reading it the first time – it certainly was to me because it gave me the impression that the Wikipedia community does not care about the (objective) truth but only about verifiability. But you quickly start to understand the rationale behind this, and the meme becomes a powerful and appealing one. While I understand that not truth provides futile grounds for wikilawyering and a more clarifying version is therefore welcome, I am missing what our current meme delivers so clearly, that "truth" by itself is not an acceptable criterion for inclusion. I am willing to support a version that addresses the issue about truth in its lead paragraph, but not this one. Nageh (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

   I think there is a trade-off between the current wording and the proposal. The current slogan is powerful in that it makes newcomers immediately clear that "truth" by itself is not a criterion for inclusion. The proposed wording attempts to address the concern that editors purposefully add false information that is presented in a reliable source. The end result for both wordings is the same: whether to include some material is a matter of WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Maybe it is the latter part that should be clarified. In the end, it seems all a question of which version is more likely to be misinterpreted. Nageh (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

2. I don't really have an opinion on proposal (2) because the definition of verifiability found in this policy is rather confusing. "Verifiability in this context means anyone should be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source." Is a piece publicly displayed in a museum something "published by a reliable source", for instance? What if it's on public display only for a limited time? Can we write in an article that a piece is found in said museum while the public display condition holds true, but we'd have to delete it thereafter? Also, a I think a policy should not link to an essay inline in its text. Perhaps Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth should be linked only in the "See also" section. I think that simply adding WP:DUE as an example in the first sentence "(especially whether specific material is included in a specific article, e.g. due weight)." would be a less verbose way to mention a concern that is not central to this policy. Proposed addition is in bold here, but I don't suggest actually using bold in the policy text. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

   Generally, things made available to the "public" have been "published". The words are very closely related. You might find it helpful to read Wikipedia:Published. On the specific example, the answer is yes for most circumstances: signs or items that are displayed in a museum (or street corner) are published. The items on display are primary sources, so you have to be very careful how you use them. However, if the exhibit is closed later, then they are no longer accessible and thus ineligible (exactly like a book is no longer eligible if every known copy is later destroyed). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

   As someone training in the museum profession I should point out that in general museum exhibits have source material for what information they provide so a museum exhibit is NOT going to be your only source for information. If the information is so obscure that the source the museum used cannot be found then you have to ask if it meets Wikipedia:Notability. For example I would love to have an article here on Doane R. Hoag's "Random Time Machine" articles that ran in several papers for nearly a decade starting in the 1970s but other than the paper it appeared in there is nothing on it and so because it fails Wikipedia:Notability we don't have an article on it and likely never will.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

   Verifiability applies to far more than "shall we have an article entirely about this subject" (=notability). You could use a museum exhibit to support, say, a single sentence in an article about fossils or history if you wanted. It might not be the best possible source, but it's probably adequate, and you must WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, even if better sources might exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

3. Neutral. I agree with the sentiment of this change, but I don't think it will work. The verifiability, not truth mantra will continue, as it is effectively true. Mark Hurd (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

   The mantra is not true, it's verifiable... (sorry I couldn't resist). Crazynas ^t 21:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

   Mark, the purpose of the proposal was never to discontinue the mantra... but to explain it better, so that people understand what it means and use it appropriately (and not use it inappropriately). Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Linked essay bases itself on the current wording

• The proposed wording for this policy links to the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth in order to explain that truth is not enough for inclusion (a clearly important concept). But that essay bases itself on the current wording here; it's initial sentence is "Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, defines the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as verifiability, not truth." How will this discrepancy be resolved? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, clearly, by editing the essay. We need to see what the consensus wording for the policy will be before we can fix the essay, though.—S Marshall T/C 12:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Does it make sense to propose a change to a policy's wording that would both link to an essay and make that essay inaccurate at the same time? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, it makes perfect sense. Essays are not rules... however, one of the main purposes of essays is to explain the thinking and intent behind the rules. The essay in question is a very good explanation of the the thinking and intent behind the phrase: "Verifiability, not truth". Linking to it will help readers gain an deeper understanding of what we mean by that phrase. Now, we will need to amended the essay slightly if this proposal is passed, but that does not mean we should not link to the essay at all. Blueboar (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Although this isn't exactly responding to Quadell's question, I'd like to suggest that, assuming the proposal passes, we have a shortcut that goes directly to the new section about truth. Currently, WP:NOTTRUTH directs to the top of WP:V. I'd very much like to see it target, instead, the proposed new section. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Unless I'm missing something, the proposed wording does not link to that essay. The rationale does, but it is not a part of the proposed change. North8000 (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The case where a reliable source is wrong in their statement

• How do you propose to resolve the case where a reliable source is wrong in their statement? I remember a case where a statement was made about Wikipedia by a reliable secondary source that was directly contradicted by the primary source of the page histories. (I'd give more details, but I don't feel like digging through archives until I remember). Easily verifiable, but in contradiction to the way we're supposed to be working here. I don't think the old version addressed the issue any better, but the new version hammers more on the published RS side of things.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

If a source is demonstrably wrong it is ipso facto not a "reliable source" - that is explained in WP:RS. I really wish people would stop trying to force this policy to do the work of a different policy. Roger (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Where in RS is there any guidelines on that? I think RS does a very good job in explaining who to judge a book by its covers, and that's what is needed most of the time, but nowhere in Wikipedia, even not in this proposal, is there particularly helpful advice on what to do when a secondary source is contradicted by primary or raw data sources. Vesal (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes actually have a clear policy on that: What we need to do if we find that a peer reviewed publication is contradicted by primary sources is that we write an article about our interpretation of the sources arguing that previous interpretations are wrong and submit it to a peer reviewed journal.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And how is checking a primary source to see if it aligns with a secondary sources description of it not Original Research? Are we not in effect saying that our skills as researchers trump the ones of peer reviewed professionals. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem everyone here is grappling with is the misuse of reliable sources. The simple fact that something is published in a book or journal article is not always sufficient to establish that this is an appropriate source or that the view it expresses is significant. I think everyone would agree about this. But whatever our solution is, it cannot be one that promotes original research, I agree fully with Maunus. I think the problem is that people have turned publication, which was a minimum criterion for verifiability, into the maximum criterion. The problem is that we need more information to know whether the source is appropriate or the view is significant. This requires more research, but not original research as Maunus describes. It means reading enough secondary sources to understand what exactly makes any given book or article important and to whom, perhaps. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We are not talking about conflicting views expressed in secondary sources. Sarek's question is about when a reliable source is contradicted by a primary or raw data source. To simplify the example, assume The New York Times, and a bunch of outlets repeating it, state that Jimbo Wales edited the entry of president Obama to say Obama is a really nasty piece of work, and you check the contribution logs and see this edit was made by an impostor, such as User:Jim Wales. What would you do? Wait until New York Times retract their statement? No other views are published in secondary sources, so it is up to you to decide whether you want to repeat untrue information. What kind of research, based on secondary sources, would help us here? What kind of NPOV considerations? Vesal (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We have an editorial discussion and decide whether the statement in the Times is significant enough to be notable- If we decide that it is then we write "On february 10th the New York times published a piece accusing Jimbo Wales of dissing Obama". And we do it because that is a fact. When Wales then decides to retort via the press then we include his statement as well. Any other approach would be Original Research. (you could for example write your finding in a letter to the editorial staff of the times - thus making them retract the statement)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that is a pretty good answer, although perhaps my example was too harmless and does not adequately reflect the situation that Sarek was referring to. Still, I would not say any other approach is original research: there is no attempt to include something in the article, and one should try to avoid repeating libelous information, even attributed, until of course the situation reaches such degree of notability that it can't be avoided, but instead Wikipedia is one of the first places that reports, and escalates, such controversies. Vesal (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that we handle it this way. The Wikipedia log is a primary source, but in this hypothetical case its reliability trumps the reliability of the secondary source The New York Times. We should always use the best and most reliable source when we try to verify something, and if that source refutes the allegation that Jimbo Wales vandalized the Barack Obama article, then that is the version we should go by. The next questions are "Is the NYT allegation notable?" and "Is it notable that someone impersonated Jimbo Wales?". If the answer to these questions is "no", then I would probably exclude that content altogether. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The proposal attempts to deal with all of this in two ways... first, by noting that Verifiability is a requirement for, but not a guarantee of inclusion... and by noting that we should look to other polices and guidelines to make the determination as to whether to include a specific bit of verifiable information. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

But the policy needs to state specifically that untruth is not in itself a valid reason for exclusion, we can include untrue statements if they are notable and attributed to their specific source, and weighted with any contradictory statements according to significance. For example we can include in the article about Monical Lewinsky that "President Clinton stated I did not have sex with that woman", and no one can remove that statement because it is a lie - because it is vrifiable fact that he made the statement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a true statement. President Clinton did state "I did not have sex with that woman". Therefore the policy supports its inclusion.—S Marshall T/C 18:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It is also true to write "the national inquirer wrote that Leonardo di Caprio has been analprobed by aliens". The reason we don't include that is not that it is untrue, but that it is insignificant. For that reason the question of "truth" is not relevant - only the question of verifiability and attribution. User BruceGrubb is for example arguing that we have to remove a statement by a recognized professional making a claim about the first usage of the word, because he himself has found an earlier usage. I say if the statement is significant we include it attributed to its source, regardless of whether BruceGrubb's or another editors original research suggest that the statement may be factually incorrect. Similarly we don't remove Clinton's statement because an editor happens to have a photo of a sexual act betwen Clinton and Lewinsky, falsifying Clinton's statement. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This kind of example got discussed to death by the working group over a period of about eight months. The situation is that if an editor writes, "Clinton stated, 'I did not have sex with that woman'," then the statement is true; but if an editor writes, "Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky" then that statement is very arguably false and certainly needs to be refactored. Even though it's sourced to the President of the United States himself. The proposed policy wording clarifies how to deal with such situations.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it does. On the contrary it suggests that wikipedians can remove statements that they "know" to be untrue regardless of whether there are any reliable sources supporting that conclusion. This undermines both WP:V and WP:NOR.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, the case you are talking about is now part of the WP:Inaccuracy page and is where Peter Knight's direct statement "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909" could be proven wrong as the phrase "conspiracy theory" could be shown to have appeared before 1909 with the earliest RS The Journal of mental science (1871)--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:Inaccuracy is intended to be a response to this type of discussion.  This essay currently says, "Ultimately, with allowing for due weight considerations in how the material is presented, and notwithstanding copyright violations, the only reason to exclude verifiable material from the encyclopedia is because it is insignificant."  And

* Levels of exclusion regarding potentially inaccurate material

• We don't use Wikipedia's voice to say it, instead we use inline attribution.
  
• We mention the anomaly in a footnote.
  
• The potentially inaccurate material has so little prominence (WP:DUE), that we don't mention it at all.

Unscintillating (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This policy with which I was not familiar should be integrated much more prominently in the proposed text of WP:V then.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

This essay is purposed as a guideline to be linked from WP:V and WP:NPOV.  It is new and needs more eyes.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Elevating this would go a long way towards alleviating the problems that are driving this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Reply to the original question: there is a statement in WP:PRIMARY: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
    • We need to stop using "secondary source" to mean "good source". Secondary sources can be truly lousy: biased, inaccurate, incomplete, non-independent, and more. If the primary source is more likely to be correct than the secondary source, then we should go with the better source. A secondary source might tell you whether a given piece of information is important (DUE), but it is not automatically the best possible source. For example, if you're quoting a line from a poem, it's often better to cite the original publication, not the (possibly mistaken) second-hand reproduction in someone else's book. We all know how the telephone game works, and anyone who doesn't recognize the problems that secondary sources have with quotations should be sentenced to cleaning up errors at Wikiquotes until he or she becomes achieves enlightenment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
      • I fully agree especially when "secondary source" = "good source" is used to curb stomp NPOV issues such as those seen in the Jesus myth theory --BruceGrubb (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)article.

Need explicit wording

1. The casual reader needs some help to make the distinction between two definitions of verifiability:

• common: The ability to determine if a claim corresponds to truth.
• Wikipedia's: The ability to determine if a summary of a claim corresponds to its appearance in a published reliable source. patsw (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

2. I would also like to see an explicit denial that as a collaboration we are indifferent to truth. My own contribution along these lines is here: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#Editors are summarizers not truth finders patsw (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

On point #2 - I agree that such a statement would be beneficial... but I don't think WP:V is the right place to put it. Blueboar (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Both points are common misunderstandings of WP:V. We're not indifferent... appears in the essay. If I see the accusation that Wikipedia editors are indifferent to the truth on- or off- Wiki again, I will bring it up on the talk page. patsw (talk) 13:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that the WIkipedia meaning of verifiability is different from wha tis at least one very common understanding and we should make this clearer. I also acknowledge that the definition of the Wikipedia use of the term is wording that the V policy has had since the page was created. I am sorry I didn't argue against it at the time, but I think that this wording has caused us a heap of trouble. It is not wrong, but it skips a step and insodoing turns reliable sources into ends when they are means to an end. I think the missing step is: we are verifying that the claim that we represent is a "significant view" meaning that the claim is not one of our own invention but rather one that is universally held, widely held, held by a majority, held by a notable minority. "Reliable sources" are the means by which we verify this. But what we are verifying is that it is a significant view. Without making this clear, to things often happen: (1) many editors misuse sources, using hat may in some context be a reliabl source inappropriately and (2) observers of WP conclude that we include anything that has been published on the web. What we are verifying is that it is a significant view giving due weight to its significance. It is only in relation to this principle that a source can be deemed reliable and be used effectively. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that most would consider this to be pretty overwhelming, far beyond beyond a consensus already. North8000 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Time to close?

Time to close? It received a large number of responses, the results look pretty overwhelming. New responses have trailed off, quantities for the last few days have been:

• October 23 2
• October 24 1
• October 25 0
• October 26 0
• October 27 1
• October 28 (today) 1

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's very reasonable. Normally, RfCs have to run a minimum of two weeks, and this is well beyond that. You could, perhaps, put a neutrally worded request at WP:AN for a previously uninvolved administrator to do the closure. --Tryptofish (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll do that North8000 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I did that. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is time to close or to announce an immanent close. But I do not consider the results to be decisive. When changing policy we need to reach a consensus. That more than a third of the people who commented are opposed or neutral shows that we are quite far from a consensus.

Many of the comments, pro and con, provide important and constructive feedback, which is a principal aim of an RfC. The question is, how to draw on the critical comments in order to craft a proposal that will generate a consensus? Answering this question may take some time, but that is something we have plenty of. I certainly think that this consensus is achievable. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

From the policy WP:Consensus in the lead of the section What consensus is,

"Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken. More than a simple majority is generally required for major changes."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, the results are pretty overwhelming, and for the specific proposal. Far above and beyond the norm for a consensus. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I would point out that the RFC was about specific wording proposed after literally months of long discussion in the attempt to find common ground. I sincerely doubt we will get unanimity on any wording, and as evidence of that I point to the fact that there are two camps of opposes in the RFC who fundamentally disagree as to why it is important to oppose the suggested wording. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Bob K31416, North8000 and Nuujinn. There's been more than eight months of discussion followed by a long, long RFC that have attracted a lot of interest and a lot of contributions. I'm looking for a decision now—not a compromise, not the start of a new kind of talking shop, but a relatively final outcome so we can finally make progress and move on.—S Marshall T/C 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I never used the word unanimity and I did not think anyone here would misinterpret "consensus" to mean unanimity. I do not think we should seek unanimity. But this is NOT an article. This is a policy. The threshold for change to a policy is much greater than it is for an article. And usually, changes to this page are made through consensus. the fact that we have had an RfC does not mean we abandon that pricniple. The purpose for a request for comment is ... to request comments. The poll does indicate that This issue needs attention, and it indicates that Blueboar has some good ideas. The fact that there are so many people opposed is also significant polls are not up/down votes. I agree that people disagree for different reasons. i also point out that people agree for different reasons. Collaborative editing means, working through all the constructive criticisms and suggestions to make a good proposal even better. We may never get unanimity and that certainly should not be an obstacle to change. But thoughtful criticisms can be applied to revising the proposal, just as thougtful support should never be dismissed.

This is a request for comment. The comments are the point; it is not just a vote. We should disregard everyone who registered support or opposition without reasons, and there may be comments that are empty of meaning, or unthoughtful or unconstructive. Whatever is left is what a request for comment is supposed to generate: thoughtful comments. I see no reason why Blueboar's proposal cannot be imporved upon, and I think many of the comments suggest ways that it can be improved. That is what an RfC is for. It is a stage in the development of a consensus through collaborative editing, in which specific comments are solicited as a way to have very focused feedback. Well, we got those comments. Whether they are in support or opposition is not the point, what matters is that they are thoughtful and constructive. That is what makes an RfC a success.

I find it hard to believe people do not think Blueboar's proposal cannot be improved upon (even if it is used as our base/starting point — please do not misrepresent my comment to mean we should abandon it). The question is, did the RfC produce comments that could help us improve it? I think it did. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

RFC's are more than just comments, they are also are THE venue for decisions and gauging a consensus. And this one is on a specific proposal. "Further improvement possible" is something for after the change, not a rationale for blocking it. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Slrubenstein said: "I find it hard to believe people do not think Blueboar's proposal cannot be improved upon..." - Actually about 1/3 of the participants in the discussion believe the best way to improve it is to drop it. Roger (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Clears throat. The opening post of this sub-thread asked whether it was time to close the RfC and how to do so. It wasn't a request for editors who already participated, either supporting or opposing, to try to tell the closing administrator what the decision should be. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I've reverted the premature RfC closure. There is no reason, with a key policy change, to close the RfC before the 30 days is up. In addition, it's not clear to me what the consensus is; not clear that the RfC was a proper wiki-wide one (I was hoping for something not on this page), and it would be appreciated if more than one (completely uninvolved) admin would agree to interpret the consensus. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Page number specification

In that verifiability depends on tracing a quote, point, or other material back to its source, and that such trace-backs are greatly facilitated by citing the specific page, section, or paragraph, the common opinion that page numbers (etc.) should be cited seems quite reasonable. Yet it seems there is no definite statement that they should be used, or even required. Should there be a definite statement that citations should be as specific as possible, to the level of page, section, or paragraph? _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at Wikipedia:Citing sources? This goes into the details of what should be included in a citation and how to format them. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. At best it says page numbers "should" be given for books. Overall it just gives the impression of something nice if you want to go to the trouble, which many editors take as being entirely optional. In being found in the context of citation it does come across as a style issue. Whereas the few statements for greater specification generally reference WP:Verifiability. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with requiring page numbers is that there are situations where a statement being made in the Wikipedia article is supported by an entire book or an entire chapter. And I can not cite a page number if the source does not have page numbers (an audio recording, for example). We can (and do) say it is "good practice" to supply page numbers, and we encourage it where appropriate, but we can not require it in all cases. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with everything Blueboar wrote and would add that this standard is just as likely to encourge people to quote whatever they can read via google snippets rather than actually reading whole books. But there is a convention for how to address Blueboar's points: if the point made is the explicit and primary point of the whole book or journal, we cite it without any page numbers. if it is an argument made in a chapter or section of a book or article, we provide the entire page range. if it is a point made on one page we cite the page. If this is not already in the CS guidelines, it ought to be. But too often I have sen editors take quotes out of context and while citing page numbers is nice, it is at least as important to verify that the quote or page citation is being used properly which usually requires one to have read the whole work. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Something else to consider... The Policy is that material should be verifiable (ie able to be verified). But we don't require that every statement be easily verified (actually, we don't even require that everything be verified... just material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged"). A citation without page numbers satisfies the requirement that the material be verifiable... it is just more difficult to actually verify.

Also... Policy pages on Wikipedia should focus on explaining broad principles, and avoid getting into too much detail (policy creep). "Correct" citation format is not really a policy issue. It is a style issue... and style issues are best discussed on style guide pages... such as WP:CS. Blueboar (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also point out that for topics that go back before ISBN became standard page numbers don't really help as there is no way to set down just which version of the book you are referring too.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• • I would be sure to use page numbers for 1) direct quotes or 2) citing to something that might be likely to be challenged by another editor. If you are citing to a more general thought supported in the book, consider citing a chapter or section. If what you are citing is the general thrust of a book, then citing the book as a whole is probably OK.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Folks can challenge the includer to show that the material is supported by the source which then forces them to be more specific. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It's always a judgment call: More general points need more general cites, while more specific points need more specific cites. If the book is entitled Sky is Blue by Dr. Light (i.e. the citation is to the general thrust of the book), then I don't think it's necessary to have a page number to support the assertion that "Dr. Light believes that the sky is blue." --GrapedApe (talk) 14:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a theme here that we cannot require page numbers because sometimes a general reference is appropriate. (Or even that some sources are not paginated.) Look, I quite understand that general refererences are sometimes appropriate (though mostly for "further reading"). But the reality is that the overwhelming majority of citations within most articles do not have page numbers – but should, as they refer to specific points or quotes. And all of that is condoned because sometimes a "general" reference might be appropriate?

And most of you responded to the wrong argument. Look again: I did not suggest that we "require page numbers", let alone require them for all sources in all contexts. I asked if we should have a more definite statement -- perhaps even to requiring -- "that citations should be as specific as possible, to the level of page, section, or paragraph". GrapedApe seems to understand this, but I seem to have caught the rest of while you were asleep.

Nor am I suggesting that "every statement" should be "easily verified". That is covered by this policy, that "requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." (And reiterated at Wikipedia:Citing sources.) Moreover, the WP:BURDEN of doing this "lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (emphasis in the original). If the originating editor is required to add a citation, why shouldn't s/he be required to add a complete citation, grabbing the specific page (section, etc.) while it is at hand? After all, s/he knows where it is, wheras someone attempting to verify the point would otherwise have to search the entire work. Because we condone letting editors make verfication harder we undercut our most basic principle.

The closest any existing statement comes to encouraging specific location (and then only for page numbers) seems to be that at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Which is, as Blueboar describes, in the context of citation technique and format. As the policy here regarding citation is largely "feel free to roll your own", that statement has the clout of a bird fart (as in "who noticed?").

Providing a specific citation (page number, section, chapter, whatever is appropriate) is not just "nice", not just a basic requirement of scholarship, but fundamental to Wikipedia. Why are we not encouraging it?

_ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• We are encouraging it. WP:CITE is very clear. There is enough wiggle room for exceptions, that's all.—S Marshall T/C 21:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Responding to J. Johnston. Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to alternate between saying it should be encouraged and saying it should be mandated. I think that several examples were given against mandating. I might add another one. This is where the same work is used many times on the article for material that is not challenged or controversial. A common practice is to just cite the overall work multiple times. Requiring page numbers would terminate that practice and force it into IMHO overkill scenarios for that particular situation....repeating the full reference many times (except with different page numbers) or else go to a more complex 2 level referencing system which is difficult/confusing for new editors. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me. I am not proposing to "mandate" anything, I am proposing to more strongly encourage appropriate specification. (Perhaps you were mislead by the bolded excerpt from WP:BURDEN? That is an existing policy!) These objections to "mandating" ("requiring") are irrelevant as that is not what I am suggesting, and I am mystified why you all keep making this invalid straw man objection.

Regarding your "common practice": current policy is that if material is "common knowledge" and not likely to be challenged, then it doesn't even have to be cited in the first place. But if something is to be cited (e.g., all quotations), then it is much easier for the original author to include the page/section/etc. while it is at hand than for a subsequent editor to search for it. This "common" practice of balling up a bunch of citations into one general reference is a very poor practice, even sleazy, and ought to be terminated. Your fear of "overkill scenarios" arises from the very confusing situation here regarding citation generally, and should not excuse sloppiness. (There are ways to do page numbers easily enough, but that is a different issue, and likely an extended discussion.)

As to encouraging "it": hardly. WP:CITE says nothing about specificity of citations. As to page numbers, it says that for books and journals they are "typically" or "usually" included (though I challenge that); a subsequent "should" fails to bring this descriptive factoid even to the level of a faint suggestion, let alone encouragment. And for newspapers: "Page number(s) are optional." In actual reality it is the inclusion of page numbers (etc.) which is the exception.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on several points. But as a point of clarification, when, on 2 occasions you say that "should" is not strong enough, that gives the impression to some (including me) of implying the typical next step up which is mandating. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

What? I am saying that current statements regarding use of page numbers, including a single instance of an express "should" buried in WP:CITE under "typically included" and "usually included", are not strong enough to encourage their use. I say that that particular "should" is not strong enough. I am amazed how you can jump from that to an "impression ... of implying ... mandating." ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My mistake then, albeit an easily-made one. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It might help clear up any misunderstanding here if you suggested a specific edit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is quite common for readers of our policy and guideline pages to confuse "should" with "must". "Should" is a fairly strong encouragement... "must" is a mandate. I can not think of a word that is stronger than "should", but not as absolute as "must", but perhaps someone else can... so I agree with Bob... we would need to see a proposed edit to move further on this. Blueboar (talk) 12:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully that is now cleared up? Specifically, that "should" does not mean "must" (a word I actually abhor), and most certainly does not imply any element of coercion? (E.g., we might lean on people to do the right thing, there might even be social pressure, but no one is going to be knee-capped, or their work purged, if they simply omit a page number.) Perhaps there was also some confusion in the question I proposed. Note that the first instance ("Should there be a definite statement...") applies to us editors, and is in the nature of "the statement is such a good idea we will be knee-capped by Jimbo ... just ought to do it", while the second instance is about the appropriate use of page numbers (etc.).

I haven't proposed a specific edit because I think we still have general issues to sort out, and that there may be more than "a few simple edits". Assuming we are clear on "should", I am going to pop this out and list some of the possible issues. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Having clarified that "should" does not mean "must", I would like to clarify some other points of possible confusion.

1. "Should" means strongly desireable, but is not (e.g.) a mandate to remove non-compliant material.
2. "Should" is constrained by "as appropriate". E.g.: page numbers are not appropriate for sources that do not have page numbers.
3. The implicit policy issue is whether citations should be as specific as possible. (Alternately: as specific as desireable.)
4. "Page number" is used here as the most common kind of citation specification, but is understood to include all specification of sections, paragraphs, or other sub-divisions of a work, whether numbered or not.

There are other points I will argue, but the points here are for clarification. I pause to see if everyone is clear on these. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

• Where a statement is sourced to a particular conclusion in a work, the conclusion's position in the work must be indicated for verification purposes. This can include text searching, paragraph numbering, lines of code or law, page numbers (with an edition specified including the city of publication). Where a statement is sourced to the primary motive of an extended work, this should be cited against the introduction, thesis, conclusion with the position in the work indicated. Where a work is cited multiple times for different matters, on each occasion the place in the work needs to be indicated. Where a work is merely cited as existing at all, "Kevin published a book, "On ducks,"" only then is it legitimate to cite the work as a whole. Even then, I'd suggest citing the bibliographic page. The idea that the "vibe" of a work is contained in the work as a whole, but never made explicit by the author, and so the work as a whole should be cited is a very bad one leading to original exegeses of the meaning of the work. Authors who make claims with their whole work, usually take the pain to do so with an introduction or conclusion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to go with Fifelfoo's level of "must": enough information must be given to allow location of the source statement(s), to the degree that the work permits this. If the work doesn't permit much localization, well, we have to live with it, but anything that suggests it is permissible to give no indication of where to find the cited information in an 800 page tome allows people to give themselves permission to include unverifiable references. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

From the section Anything challenged or likely to be challenged of WP:Verifiability, "Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where applicable." --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Fifeloo has propounded the point well: it is a bad idea (and a bad practice) to cite a source generally for some point or "vibe" that is never made explicitly. I would add as a very bad practice the "common" one suggested earliar, of leaving off specific page numbers (etc.) where there are multiple citations of a source. (If adding page numbers and such is too difficult, then one's citation technique needs revision, and I strongly urge getting weaned from named refs. But that is a discussion for elsewhere.)

However, I would be cautious about bandying around "must", for all the reasons we covered above. "Should" implies an obligation, as in one ought to do something, but "must" has intonations of compulsion. I would tell editors that they really ought to provide specification, lean on them heavily, even make GA status contingent on specification. But "must" gets too murky, even electrifying; "should" is (I think) sufficient, and generally preferable. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I would add that named refs that are broken into References and Notes sections work well and are not hard to manage. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the caveats (regarding "should", "appropriate", and "page numbers" as proxy for specification in general) are clear, so I return to the implicit policy issue: should citation be specific? (Don't forget the caveat of appropriate.) That is, given the existing policy that sources should be cited, does that extend into specifying the location within a source?

I argue yes, on the grounds that it is 1) a basic requirement of scholarship, and 2) fundamental to the Wikipedia principle of verifiability. In anticipation of some previous arguments being recycled I would further argue that supposed difficulty of adding a specification (e.g., page number) originally is of very little weight, and much outweighed by the difficulty of subsequently trying to find an alleged point. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

reliable sources and list entries

An editor who has done some excellent research in creating the list of Christian hardcore bands seems to be of the opinion that a phrase in a single album review that loosely associates a band with a related genre is sufficient to adding that band or artist to this list. Some other editors feel that the music should be representative of the style at the time and that several articles, particularly of contested artists, should be provided.

Granted, most lists don't even have a single reference for the entries, so this article is outstanding. Could we have a few people step in on the article to discuss? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussing the RfC

The RfC is now closed. I thought that in cases like this it is up to the person who initiated the RfC (Blueboar) to close it, but I don't think we are going to attract many more comments.

But I am concerned that some people think it is an up-down vote. According to the policy, *"Requests for comment (RfC) is an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, and dispute resolution, with respect to article content, user conduct, and Wikipedia policy and guidelines."

• "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes."

Well, we succeeded in soliciting a good deal of thoughtful comment. Apparently there is no consensus, but I interpret the comments to mean that (1) the current explanation of "Verifiability not truth" needs work and (2) Blueboar's proposal represents an important step forward. Nevertheless, it is still up to us to discuss how best to make use of the proposal. I believe that with some ammendments, we may be able to address most of the criticisms of the proposal, while also responding to the need for better clarification and guidance.

First, I think it is clear from discussion that V cannot be reduced to RS. Therefore, I would propose changing Blueboar's proposed first sentence to:

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

The following paragraph links this policy to NOR. But V and NOR are only two of our three core content policy, each of which supports the others.

Second, I think that there is considerable support for "not truth" but a need to explain it more clearly. This is where there is a need to explain how this policy relates to NPOV. I think if we do this, we clear up much of the confusion over our long-standing slogan. Therefore, I propose adding to Blueboar's proposal a new second paragraph:

• The essense of this policy is traditionally summed up as, "The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth." Wikipedia does not claim that any of the views in its articles are "true," we only claim that they are significant views (which if need be can be specifically attributed), presented in a neutral way. In order to include a view in WP, we avoid arguments over whether they are true or false and instead seek to verify that they are indeed significant, and that we are giving each view due weight, and that we are providing accurate accounts of these views. And in order to verify these things, we look for reliable sources.

Some significant views make explicit claims about what is true or false, or what is fact or opinion, and we include these as views of the truth or the facts. We also avoid distinguishing between facts and opinions, because there are no universally held definitions for these terms, what some consider fact others may consider opinion, what everyone considers fact may turn out to be opinion tomorrow, and because the difference between the two is not black-and-white. Instead, we try to assess and acknowledge degrees of controversy. Some propositions are so uncontroversial that we can put them in without citation or attribution. Some things are so controversial that not only must we provide a citation, but a quotation and specific attribution. And between these two extremes may be many degrees. In all cases, it must be possible to verify the views expressed by the article.

Finally, in the new section that Blueboar crafted, I would suggest changing "Assertions of untruth" to "Assertions of inaccuracy" and generally consider changing "truth" or "untruth" to "accurate" and "inaccurate."

It is my hope that combining these proposals with Blueboar's will move us much closer to consensus, without abandoning the work and thought Blueboar put into her proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I object strongly to your reversion of Sarek's closure. There has been discussion, there is consensus by a very broad margin – and reversion rather than improvement is, frankly, disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

  Absolutely and strongly agree with Tryptofish. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Shortcut

WP:NOTTRUTH has long been (and still is) one of many shortcuts to this page. After the close of the RfC, I changed it from going to the top of the page, to going to the new section just after the lead. I also put a template box in the new section, showing that it is a shortcut to there. Bob reverted my addition of the box. I fully understand, of course, that the issues surrounding "not truth" have been a matter of contention. (After the ongoing discussions, how could I miss it!) But I think there may have been some misunderstanding in that revert. It's just a shortcut, not a statement, and it refers directly to the language that is prominently featured in that section. Bob's edit summary suggested some other possible shortcut names, and I have no objections to adding those. Unless someone wants to start a deletion discussion for the redirect page, the link still goes here, so I see nothing wrong with telling readers that it does so. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a link to the section that includes and explains "not truth" is better. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

So do I, but Bob has now changed the redirect so it goes back to the top of the page, which seems to me to be going from bad to worse. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that although there was previously a redirect of NOTTRUTH to WP:V since 2007,[3] NOTTRUTH was not mentioned as a shortcut on the Verifiability policy page until it was put there today.

Mentioning WP:NOTTRUTH as a redirect anywhere in WP:V would give the contentious phrase more support. The shortcut WP:ASSERTIONS that was recently added should be sufficient as a shortcut without having a shortcut based on the contentious phrase "not truth". Please remember that the title of the section is Assertions of truth and untruth. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, things are still in flux, because as of the time of my edit, the consensus of the RfC has been reverted. But thanks for, at least, explaining your position in talk. I don't buy the argument that the shortcut name does anything to give support to anything other than what the text created by Blueboar says. It doesn't mean "Wikipedia doesn't care about truth." It means simply that "Wikipedia's discussion of 'verifiability, not truth' can be found here." Having a shortcut is helpful to editors (including those who are reverting the RfC!) who want to point those who say "But my edit is the truth!" to the correct place on this page. In fact, my reluctant support for this proposal was very much based on the understanding that, if the discussion of "not truth" were taken out of the lead, it would still be possible to point readers to where it is discussed. Your current edit, [4], which I believe should be reverted, does nothing about what appears on this page. All it does is (assuming the new text is eventually restored) target the shortcut to the wrong part of the page, forcing the reader to look around for what they were looking for. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I think we share the same feelings on "not truth". But the IMHO new change puts it in a section which clarifies its meaning which reduces the problematic misinterpretations. My thought was that IF a wp:nottruth redirect exists, sending it to that more specific explanation would be less problematic that a redirect to the general policy which could be taken to imply that wp:ver overall is about "not truth". I could be wrong. North8000 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What we have now is the WP:NOTTRUTH shortcut shown on the page, but not directing to where it is shown. To me, that makes no sense at all. We can discuss whether the shortcut should be shown on the page or not, but I think it's nonsense to have it direct to the wrong place. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually we should not "discuss whether the shortcut should be shown on the page or not" because removing it would cause thousands of instances of the shortcut on talk pages and in edit summaries to become meaningless redlinks. Roger (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, although I suppose an argument could be made to keep using the shortcut, but to just not display it in the box on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the shortcut WP:NOTTRUTH should point directly to the section: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Assertions of truth and untruth (as that is the only section of the policy that discusses the issue of truth.)

Lets be logical here... any previous links to WP:V using the shortcut WP:NOTTRUTH were made with the intent of pointing the reader to the phrase "Verifiability, not truth"... as that phrase has now been moved to the "assertions" section (and more fully explained), it makes sense to redirect the shortcut there as well. And, we should list it in the section shortcut box so people know it exists as a shortcut. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)