Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

A big difference

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

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

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

Meh. "This policy requires that" grates on me: the subjunctive unnecessarily complicates the sentence and the whole is a wordy circumlocution. We can surely do better, but I currently don't have the patience to go through the process involved in improving the language.—S Marshall T/C 18:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

So would "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and any quotation, requires attribution in the form of an inline citation." rather than "This policy requires that any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, be attributed in the form of an inline citation." satisfy? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly improve! Any plain English version would be a step forward but my ideal phrasing would be as simple instructions ("Attribute all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, using an inline citation"). I've never understood why there would be an objection to that but it gets reverted when I put it in.—S Marshall T/C 18:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that part I understand. We try not to instruct editors that they have to do things. They are, after all, volunteers. Rather we describe what direction we think the encyclopedia article has to take. If the editor Alice puts an assertion in but doesn't cite it, that's still a good-faith contribution to be grateful for. Bob can mark it with {{cn}}, Chandra can find a reliable source and Diego can format the citation. It isn't the most efficient approach, but it is the way things usually work here. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't get me started on that..:). Dreadstar ☥ 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's why my simplification here included the word "please".  :) It was reverted on the basis that "please" makes compliance with the policy sound optional when it is in fact compulsory. I remain of the opinion that the purpose of a policy is to give simple, easy-to-follow instructions.—S Marshall T/C 20:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It weakens the policy, waters it down. Find wording that doesn't, or leave it be. Dreadstar ☥ 20:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In this case, the language comes from WP:BURDEN, which does contain a requirement... we are intentionally telling editors: if you wish to add or keep an unsourced statement to an article, that is OK... but if it is challenged (or likely to be challenged), you are the one who is required to supply a source for it (and not the editor(s) who challenge it). Why? Because we say so... it is an arbitrary "rule" that we have agreed on. Blueboar (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe something in a following sentance that says if something isn't sourced it may be removed at any time and should not (we cannot say "cannot" because we cannot stop the info from being readded by any means other than a total article lockdown) be readded until it can be sourced.∞陣内Jinnai 05:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

If it's a requirement as Blueboar says, then why shouldn't we use the imperative? I go back to my earlier proposal that we simplify the sentence to say "Attribute all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, using an inline citation".—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can't agree the requirement that content be subject to verification is arbitrary. It is, so far as I can tell, an inescapable consequence of "anyone can edit" and "not fiction". But the imperative applies to the articles, not to the editors. No editor has to do anything, not even the few foundation officials who hold fiduciary duties. We have no mechanism to coerce people to even turn their computers on, let alone strike specific keys on their keyboards. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to explain this another way... There is a non-legalistic need for all material to be verifiable ... we state a legalistic requirement (for actual verification) when it comes to material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. That requirement is: "If you wish to prevent such material from being removed, you are required to search for sources and provide a citation." The penalty for non-compliance might be the summary removal of the material in question.

The lede should explain the general need for verifiability (of all material)... we can leave it for a later section (WP:BURDEN) to explain the requirement for verification (when the material is challenged or likely to be challenged). Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, do we have different ways of seeing this! "Penalty"? No, unless I'm wrongly invested in one version. "Compliance"? No, nor even "conformance". "You are required"? No, because anyone can do it and achieve the same thing. Try instead "Material that lacks the citations needed (or required, if you like) for verification may be summarily removed." LeadSongDog come howl! 06:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Only if we added a bit on re-adding the info without an inline citation.∞陣内Jinnai 06:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I was using "you" in its plural. No one who wants to remove the information is going to bother looking for sources... so the requirement to search for and provide citation does rest on all of "you" (in the plural) who wish to keep it. As for removal being a penalty... when it comes to arguments about keeping/deleting unsourced information in/from an article, editors are often wrongly invested in a particular version. Such invested editors do see removal of the material as a "Penalty". They shouldn't, but they do. The point of WP:BURDEN is to tell them: "the way you (in the plural) can avoid this by providing a source".

But that was not really the point I was trying to make... All I was really trying to say was that the language in question was crafted for a specific section (WP:BURDEN), and I don't think it translates well when moved into the lede.

I suppose it is really a question of what tone we should set in the various parts of the policy... To my mind, the lede should set a non-legalistic "tone"... it should use language that explains the need for verifiability. We can set a more legalistic tone (and explain situations when there is a requirement for actual verification) later in the policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, then perhaps we're not so far apart after all. I agree that the tone should (so far as possible) be descriptive, not prescriptive. When we describe the need, though, let us focus upon the product, not the editors. Certainly anything that enables or encourages the adoption of an editwarring mentality is undesirable, and yes that includes legalistic language, but it also includes possesives such as the multi-pronged "your". (Sometimes I hate my mother-tongue!) I suppose BURDEN needs addressing in the same light: it would function better if it could preclude conflicts rather than resolve them. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The goal of BURDEN is to preclude conflicts... before we added BURDEN we had constent debates where one side said "prove this is so" and the other side said "no, you prove it isn't so". The community opted for saying "The editors who challenge do not need to prove the negative... those who wish to keep it must prove the positive"... that bit of history stated... what should (in my opinion) be added to BURDEN is something that says: "If something you added gets challenged, don't get upset and argue about it... it will take less time go on Google, find a source, and add it to the article than it would to argue. Adding a source is quicker and much less stressful than arguing." Now that would preclude conflicts. Blueboar (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

One simple solution is to say that "Any material...must be attributed..." That's a statement of fact, not a command.

What makes a policy be descriptive is if it describes what we do. It is possible to describe actual practice while using strong words like must and do not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That would only be true if consensus can override the requirement that content be verifiable. We're not describing practice with that, we are proscribing it. Parts of Policy are descriptive and subject to consensus, parts are prescriptive non-negotiable. This needs strong and clear wording. Dreadstar ☥ 01:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean prescribing, not proscribing, but I'll take that as support for my view.—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Prescribing is fine, but proscribing is the better word...it's not just 'long standing' it's more of a basic WP law. "to condemn or forbid as harmful or unlawful", acts that are proscribed by law :) Prescription works only under the definition that it's a rule (eg a 'regulating principle) Dreadstar ☥ 01:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Dreadstar ☥ 01:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dreadstar, to proscribe verifiability would be the same as to "condemn or forbid" verifiability. We prescribe, i.e., "require" verifiability.

Additionally, the sole reason that verifiability is a "basic WP law" and a "requirement" is because the community has chosen to treat it as such. You will not find a WMF Board resolution that demands that the English Wikipedia follow this requirement, because this requirement was not handed down from on high. The community's own consensus is what created this requirement in the first place. If we-the-community were ever to lose our collective marbles, then we have the right and the power to end this requirement, just like we had the right and the power to create the requirement in the first place, and just like we have the right and the power to maintain the requirement today.

Finally, I have no idea how my proposed change to make the sentence read "...must be attributed..." is neither "strong" nor "clear". Perhaps the word must means something wishy-washy to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's a version:

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

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

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

Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy.

Here is the difference between the current and suggested [1]. B^e——C_ritical 02:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Dreadstar, will you please allow the policy to be edited. Thank you in advance for being co-operative and helpful in this.—S Marshall T/C 02:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Watering down the policy isn't appropriate. We should be clear and direct and we should state requirements as such. B^e——C_ritical 02:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. My proposed edit strengthens it. It turns a statement ("This policy requires that...") into a direct instruction.—S Marshall T/C 02:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree Marshall, your edit weakens the Policy. Dreadstar ☥ 02:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well it did simplify it. The whole lead needs a good combing out like above, but it's so contentious that no one can edit. Even an edit like what I did above, and Marshall's which didn't really change much meaning but did take out some of the vehemence. "Policy" and "requires" and "must" give emphasis. But not strictly necessary... I wish we could just write it more smoothly. B^e——C_ritical 03:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I made my views on this obvious above. We shouldn't instruct if we can possibly avoid it. We should inform. But we should do it in simple language that all editors can understand. Even that annoying pre-teen know-it-all. The twisted language above defeats itself. Try out your favorite version here and see for yourself. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What about, "All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. Some information [blah blah..give the 4 types here] must use inline citations. Material not meeting these standards may be removed with no additional reason required."?∞陣内Jinnai 03:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering that we have to rely on this to force people who don't want to do things right to do them right, I think the legalistic tone is appropriate. These are absolute, non-negotiable requirements which you will meet if you want to edit Wikipedia, and don't bother to argue and don't complain when others use this policy. We shouldn't put it that way to editors on talk pages, usually, but the policy should leave no wiggle room even if it's just psychological. So let's inform people that this is how it is. As to the twisted language, I agree, do you want to rewrite without maintaining the classic language (I retained it above). B^e——C_ritical 03:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "This policy requires..." is strong, concise and sets that specific requirement off from the rest. It helps provide focus on one of the key, non-negotiable elements of this policy. Dreadstar ☥ 03:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We cannot require anyone to put citations in and unless someone starts warring they are unlikely to get banned for not doing so. As to your last point, I think it should be made as clearly as possible with the concisest and simplest manner possible. I am also not a fan of VnT, but even if I were, I'd say if it would stay it would have to be used in a manner that kept it short and to the point and didn't require elabortation on what VnT meant.∞陣内Jinnai 03:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the content that requires it, this policy puts editors on notice that if they don't meet the requirement their content may be removed. Dreadstar ☥ 03:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

But it requires elaboration from every proposal I've seen thus far. IMO even the current draft below is too verbose. My text proposal could remove imo most of the first 3 paragraphs and combine the lead into 2 paragraphs. Only the brief mention about BLP and it applying to the mainspace (which should be rephased to article mainspace since WP:V is mainspace for this talk page and it doesn't apply there) is all that would need to be added, plus that last paragraph.∞陣内Jinnai 04:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You know you're welcome to edit below so we know exactly what you suggest. B^e——C_ritical 04:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:V is not in the Mainspace aka "Main Namespace", policy resides in Project Namespace aka "Wikipedia namespace". Nothing is simple.. :) More info on namespaces can be found here: Wikipedia:Namespace. Dreadstar ☥ 04:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

• "Attribute all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."
• "Please attribute all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."
• "You must attribute all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."
• "Editors should attribute all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."
• "All articles must attribute all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material."

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

Articles don't attribute material: people do.

I believe that the passive actually works best for this issue: "All quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." This is both strong and clear, and it avoids the worries some editors have about appearing to tell individual editors to add citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• The passive is less than ideal but I'm just happy we've managed to get rid of "this policy requires that", so I'm tolerant of the current version.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Summing up several recent ideas

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

Verifiability is defined on Wikipedia as the ability to directly support what is stated in an article with citations to reliable sources. All material in Wikipedia should be verifiable. Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are convinced that the material in question is 100% true. The threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth.

Would something like this be a step in the right direction? If so, I would suggest that the second paragraph open with the caveat that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, while the third paragraph discuss the fact that, although every statement should be verifiable, not every statement needs to be verified with an inline citation (which gets us into the "challenged or likely to be challenged" concept.) Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Please, let's not present VNT as an isolated idea!  It's slightly less poisonous with the qualifying clause "whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true" after it.  If we're bound and determined to keep VNT in the lede despite the fact that most editors don't want that, then at least let's keep it with the qualifications and explanations firmly attached.  Even better, move it out of the first paragraph into a separate text box as Be Critical suggests.—S Marshall T/C 16:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is defined as the direct support of material in an article with citations to reliable sources. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth. All material in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are convinced that the material in question is 100% true. Threshold....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Verifiability is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. The threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth, meaning that the beliefs of editors should never determine the content of Wikipedia.

I don't like having VnT in there at all: it is an artefact which could better be expressed as "Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors." But people are clinging to it in the belief that excluding it weakens the text et seq. B^e——C_ritical 17:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And another idea: if we had a clear community consensus on the idea that "Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors," would VnT seem so necessary to people? If we could form such a consensus and put that text in the nutshell, would VnT still seem necessary to them? B^e——C_ritical 18:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar's draft

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

Verifiability is defined on Wikipedia as the ability to directly support what is stated in an article with citations to reliable sources. All material in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are convinced that the material in question is 100% true. In this context, the threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth (whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think the material is true)

While verifiability is needed for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion (especially Wikipeida's other core content policies: WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view). These policies and guidelines jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all of them.

While verifiability requires that everything be attributable to a reliable source, in practice you do not need to physically attribute every statement or word. A statement such as "Paris is the capital of France" is so easily and obviously attributable, there is no need to actually cite a source to support it. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.[1] For help on adding citations, see Citing sources.

This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be tagged as such, or even removed (unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.

With the exception of the opening paragraph, this proposal is primarily just a reshuffling of existing language. I have tried to make as few changes as possible. I know it does not resolve every issue... but I think it would resolve a lot of them. As for the idea of removing VnT entirely... I don't think that will fly. There are those that will instantly reject any proposal that removes it. The only way to achieve consensus is to retain it in some form. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That version achieves an "Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading Gunning Fog index : 18.43" at this calculator. It is at least 6 years harder than it needs to be. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps... but I am not trying for perfection, just improvement... so let me ask: is it easier to understand than what we currently have? Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that the test means much. I ran "Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas." and "Time flies like an arrow true and straight. Fruit flies like bananas." through that test (retuning 6.24 and 5.73 respectively). So it take the average American half a year of additional education before they can understand the shorter sentence! -- PBS (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not championing one metric in particular, they all have flaws. The oddity you spotted shows up the particular sensitivity of Gunning's metric to polysylabic word frequency. But they do help identify the difference between simple statements in plain language and the sort of convoluted obfuscation which, all too frequently, we see in the very policy statements that are created with the intention to direct the ongoing ameliorization of this collaborative endeavour to which we somewhat hypocritically apply the sobriquet "The encyclopedia anyone can edit". If it's too awkward to speedread, it's bad policy. We need to solve this.

I prefer your earlier version above with my changes :o). It has more impact, and is less wordy. It progresses logically: an opening definition, then the basic short summary verifiable, truth, threshold. The reader gets fed the whole thing in the first lines. But thanks for your continued flexibility and efforts(olive (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC))

Well of course you prefer the version with your changes, that's why you suggested them. :>) We all prefer our own wording selections. The question is, would you oppose my proposal because it does not include your language? (I hope not). Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Suggest working on the first paragraph first, before going onto something else. The main task for the first paragraph is putting a clearer definition of verifiability first, like you did in the previous section. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree... the problem was that I wanted to demonstrate how my proposal for the first paragraph fit into the larger lede section. I was concerned that people would misunderstand my intent, and think that I was trying to omit concepts that they consider important. A major rewrite of the first paragraph, (which is what I am proposing, and what I do want people to focus on) will of necessity mean some minor rewriting and reorganization of the paragraphs that follow. Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Verifiability is defined on Wikipedia as the ability to directly support what is stated in an article with citations to reliable sources. Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are convinced that the material in question is 100% true. The threshold for inclusion is Verifiability, not truth. While verifiability is needed for inclusion, it does not guarantee inclusion. Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion.

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

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

1. Current: Under the spirit/intent of "challenged or likely to be challenged" it should never need citation. But under other parts of wp:ver a a POV warrior from the "Wish the sky were green society" could just say "it's unsourced, and I get to delete it if it isn't"
2. What I propose is that they would just also need to state (not argue, just state) a concern, like "I'm not so sure about that sky color and it's unsourced, please get it sourced". In other words, complies with the true spirit and intent of "challenged or likely to be challenged" criteria.
3. I think that one sentence Blueboar's proposal inadvertently goes a step further, it appears to provide a route for someone to argue "I think that its obviously true, so i don't need to source it" . I'd recommend tweaking that one sentence to avoid that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This really depends on what point in the editing process we are talking about. I was focusing on when someone initially adds material to an article... at this point it is absolutely OK for them to take the position that "this statement is so easily sourced that I don't need to bother actually sourcing it". You, on the other hand, are focusing on a later point... the point when a challenge has been issued. Once a challenge has been issued, those who wish to keep the material are faced with a choice... they can either engage in debate and attempt to convince the challenger that his/her challenge is unreasonable, or they can mutter "what an asshole" to themselves, shrug their shoulders, and provide a source - even though they don't think a source is needed. To my mind, the latter reaction is preferred... as it is almost always faster, easier and less stressful on all concerned. It usually takes all of thirty seconds to locate and slap in a source ... but it can take days of argument and growing contention to convince the challenger that they are being unreasonable. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind your draft, but I think it's wordy. Just as an example, "This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. " -----> This policy applies to all material in the mainspace." We don't have to blather on just for emphasis (yes I know this is from the current lead). B^e——C_ritical 17:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree... but several people have suggested that we will be more likely to achieve a consensus if we make as few changes to the existing language as possible... I think this is good advice. So, since the "blather" was in the existing version, I kept it in my version. We can always discuss trimming the "blather" at a later time. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternately, it's the blather that is less controversial to trim, which is what I've been doing at the article. "This policy requires that" ----> "must" in this edit, and also I got to trim "directly supports," since it's now in the first definition sentence. B^e——C_ritical 20:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't see agreement for all of the changes. Did I miss something? (olive (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

Can you point to any actual changes to the policy? If not, are you opposed to better writing? B^e——C_ritical 20:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

These changes were under discussion and suddenly they are in the article. I'm surprised. Better writing (as a general principle not in reference to this discussion) is always a matter of opinion. subjective rather than objective.(olive (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC))

Becritical, For months the discussion has been about better writing, not about changing policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Better writing is what they teach you in English classes, subjectivity is for advanced poetry classes :P I hope it is clearer and simpler without having changed the meaning, and I hope the policy is no less emphatic. B^e——C_ritical 23:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

• Like freaking clockwork with the next part of the "change". This is really cute, y'all, subverting consensus like this. In a very subtle manner...? Doc talk 11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Problem: now it says: "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". In other words, first we say that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, then we go on to say that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability. I see these developments as an improvement so I'm reluctant to revert, but as currently written our policy is oxymoronic. Can we please replace "the threshold" with "the first criterion"?—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the object was to make some of the edits which don't change either the emphasis or meaning of the policy, but leave the controversial parts. But I disagree about VnT: Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, but the minimum requirement for anything to be in an article is verifiability. That's not contradictory. Now we can work on some better phrasing for VnT. You know my suggestion. B^e——C_ritical 23:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understand why people have such difficulty with the word "threshold"... Imagine a walled castle named "Inclusion in Wikipedia"... To enter this castle you must pass through a series of gates (ie thresholds)... As you approach the castle, the very first gate you come to is a very large and impressive gate marked "Verifiability". You definitely can not get into the castle without passing through it ... however, just beyond this gate are other gates (other thresholds). You also have to pass through them if you want to enter the castle. However, there is no point in worrying about them until you are passed through the gate of Verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What you just described is not what the sentence says. It only refers to "The threshold", not to any other subsequent thresholds. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't want someone to come along and revert all the good changes we made, so leave it for a while. After the current changes are digested a bit, we can change it to something that's easier to understand, "Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors," or some other phrasing. The trick will be to edit in a way that is easy to digest and non-confrontational, and eliminating VnT at this juncture is a good way to get people not to consider our changes. As would be making any real change in emphasis or content. B^e——C_ritical 00:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest "This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons" ----> "This policy applies to all material in the mainspace." The "and I mean it, Stanley" stuff is a bit much. So if no one minds I'll change it accordingly. B^e——C_ritical 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have "Articles must also comply with the copyright policy"? Does this article need to say that? B^e——C_ritical 01:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It was essentially put in with this diff. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• It was put in because of me. I persisted in demanding it until editors saw the need. Without going too much into the history, let's just say that I did so after a certain very senior editor whom I need not name was found to have implemented serial copyright violations in a very large number of articles. Basically he'd built virtually his entire corpus of articles via close paraphrasing. When he was challenged about it, WP:V was his excuse. That editor has now very thoroughly vanished, but the experience taught us that we need to explain that you can follow WP:V over a cliff. There's a balance to be struck between saying what the sources say, and not saying what the sources say too closely.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Ambiguity about the circularity wording.

There seems to be some ambiguity about the wording of the section wp:CIRCULAR and I propose to change the wording of one sentence in order to resolve the ambiguity. This is of course not a request to change a policy — just for a clarification of the current policy.

Background - There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Wikipedia#Wikipedia:Formal organization ( revised and updated) (and there was one archived before) about whether a section about Wikipedia can be added to the main space article Wikipedia, based on primary sources only. Some say yes, some say no, pointing to and quoting various parts of various policy statements.

Currently the statement is worded as:

Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.

I think that, depending on the actual philosophy behind wp:CIRCULAR, it would be a good idea to reword the above quoted statement either to:

Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself,

or to:

Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may not be cited as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.

(Emphasis for clarity — not to be included).

So, in order to avoid similar discussions, the policy statement would just need either 3 extra, or "4 extra and 2 less" words to become undisputably unambiguous.

The important question is of course, what is actually meant here in wp:CIRCULAR, and then, can we have the policy unambiguously reflect that? - DVdm (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose both, Both of them are a significant change to what the policy says now. Wikipedia is a primary source about itself, so its use falls under wp:PRIMARY. Thus there is no clear yes/no and it depends on the situation. Yoenit (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

But the primary question is: what does the policy say now?. Before we know that, there's not much to oppose. Remember, this is not a request for change of policy. It is a request for clarification of policy, and only then —perhaps— one for change of formulation. - DVdm (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The current policy wording merely says Wikipedia can be used as a primary source in articles about itself. It does not say when and how it is appropriate to do so. When and how to use primary sources is described in wp:PRIMARY, not in this policy. Yoenit (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, wp:PRIMARY (in policy wp:NOR) says "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided," but wp:CIRCULAR (in policy wp:V) says: "Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself." These two policy statements clearly contradict each other. Is there some other super-policy that says that wp:NOR must take precedence over wp:V? - DVdm (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see those as conflicting. One says to avoid purely primary sourced material, the other says that primary sourced material should only be used with caution and should be cited. So, whey we must use WP as a source about WP, we should attribute with inline citation so that readers know they're seeing a self-referential statement. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is indeed only a conflict if Yoenit's view is valid. That's why I think it might be a very good idea to reword that circularity sentence to explicitly allow for this for non-conflicting interpretatrion. - DVdm (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:PRIMARY: Secondary and tertiary sources says:

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

This sentence says clearly that the purpose of secondary and tertiary sources is to avoid novel interpretations, analyses, synthetic claims and so forth.

Nonetheless, WP:Primary in its present form is used with a sound bite mentality that refuses to look at the purpose of the policy and sees this policy in toto as :

"The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source"

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

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

An example of misuse of WP:Primary is to oppose the simple statement:

"Another activity of Administrators is the granting of permissions to contributors to augment their editing capabilities."

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

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

Perhaps two common examples of the use of primary sources in wikipedia will help with that "soundbite mentality"

1. Plot summaries are usually based solely on primary sources, but we allow them provided the article contains other content as well.
2. The history section of a company article, which are often sourced from the company website.

For each of these you should be able to find tens of thousands of examples. Yoenit (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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

• Comment: In an even more restrictive manner than WP:Primary, WP:V states WP:VF#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves...so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources"

This last is one of a list of five provisions that must be met, and in my opinion should be deleted inasmuch as the previous four requirements suffice. The purpose of the policy is:

"any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source"

It seems highly improbable that a statement like:

"Another activity of Administrators is the granting of permissions to contributors to augment their editing capabilities."

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

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

• Observation: Perhaps the rephrasing could include some restrictions:

Lacking secondary sources, Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of factual information on itself that does not include matters of assessment or interpretation, such as in articles about itself.

I am concerned that articles on WP could be used that are somewhat conjectural or have opinions not widely shared. Brews ohare (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well... suppose an article about Wikipedia is discussing how some articles in Wikipedia contain conjectural statements or highlight opinions not widely shared... in this situation, it might be helpful to give the reader an example of some articles that do so. In this situation, the Wikipedia articles being used as examples should be cited (but carefully... as these articles are primary sources for this information, and thus subject to all the restrictions we place on the use of primary material). Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar: We could distinguish between articles describing the facts about how WP operates and articles evaluating aspects of WP such as the adequacy of its organization, events occurring on WP, accuracy of its content, and so forth. Perhaps it is necessary to use a more elaborate statement. Is this what you are driving at? Or, are you suggesting the status quo is best, despite its ambiguity and present misuse? Brews ohare (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any ambiguity... It is a matter of policy scope... what you are concerned about is valid, but it falls under the scope of WP:NOR, not WP:V. WP:NOR makes it clear that we should not use a primary source to to support a statement of analysis or evaluation (no matter what the topic is). I see no need for this policy to repeat that statement. Blueboar (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar: My remarks above are intended to clarify when WP:OR or WP:V or WP:Primary do not apply, as the main problem with these policies is that they are being applied without sufficient care to suppress material that they in fact do not apply to. This misapplication could be avoided by clearer explanation in these policies, which is what the above proposals aim for.

So what is being discussed is just what falls "under the scope" of these policies. What matters is cleaning them up so they are applied where they should apply. Brews ohare (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to citing Wikipedia articles in Wikipeida, WP:Primary and WP:NOR always apply. Blueboar (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

But apparently WP:CIRCULAR, which is part of WP:V (a policy!), and which also says someting about citing Wikipedia articles in Wikipedia, seems not to apply. Don't you find that odd? Shouldn't that somehow be made clear? - DVdm (talk) 08:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@DVdm, I think the problem is that you don't understand wp:PRIMARY. You seem to interpret wp:PRIMARY as "primary sources are never allowed", but this is not correct (or atleast not how it is applied in practice, as my examples above show). The core of the whole issue is probably the "Material purely based on" sentence. This is usually interpreted to refer to articles as a whole, rather than to individual sections or sentences. (again, see the examples I posted). With this interpretation there is no conflict between wp:PRIMARY and wp:CIRCULAR. Yoenit (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So, let's change the wording in a way that nobody can misunderstand it, and that no examples must be given to those who might misunderstand it. That is what this RFC is about - it was not about taking Brews' section on board in some article. Here, in this context I don't really care if it is or isn't. This is just about changing a few words in some sentence in a policy, in order to avoid it being misunderstood. You opposed to my proposals because it depends on the situation. So, which formulation would you propose? - DVdm (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yoenit: It appears that you object to changing the statements of the policy because they work fine if they are properly interpreted. The difficulty with the policies is not the policies but their statements, which are often misapplied. You might argue that such differences of interpretation are easily resolved on a Talk page, but in fact that is not the case. The policies are simply reiterated in simplistic fashion and the purpose or intent of the policies is felt to be too much hairsplitting and an attempt to circumvent their "real' meaning. Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

wp:CIRCULAR is a section about the issue of circular references. The only reason why it includes the final sentence (which we have been discussing) is to prevent people from thinking that using wikipedia as a source for articles about itself a form of circular referencing. If I would have to rewrite that sentence, keeping exactly the same meaning, it would be something along the lines of:

Using information from wikipedia to write something on itself, such as in articles about itself, is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is use of wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources.

This makes it very clear wp:CIRCULAR does not allow/disallow anything, it just points out the situation is not circular referencing and directs you to wp:PRIMARY. Yoenit (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(I have replaced the xt-template with an xt2 to show line breaks — hope you don't mind.)

If that is indeed the policy, then this would already be a very good step forward, away from ambiguity. I could certainly live with it. - DVdm (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Would this resolve the issue:

Citing a Wikipedia article to support a descriptive statement about Wikipedia itself, is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is the use of wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources.

Blueboar (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. - DVdm (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

One nitpick: "Wikipedia articles" is too narrow. What we are most likely to cite are pages from Wp:Project namespace or special pages like Special:Statistics, not articles. I would suggest changing it to "Wikipedia pages" or just "Wikipedia". Yoenit (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Another point remains, however, that WP:V states WP:VF#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves...so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources"

This is a somewhat separate issue (it overlaps, if one considers WP as a "questionable source", which I believe is the case), but I'd like to invite comment that this provision should be amended. There are already four other listed requirements that cover every situation I can imagine, and this particular provision seems unduly restrictive. For instance, it means that an overview article that uses WP policy pages to outline the factual nature of WP policies (without assessing them, just reporting them) cannot be written in Main space. Why not? It seems to me that any objections to such an article are well covered by the previous four restrictions. Brews ohare (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not mean that an overview article that uses WP policy pages to outline the factual nature of WP policies (without assessing them, just reporting them) cannot be written in Main space. It means that the policy pages in question (the primary source) should not be the only sources we use. We also need to find secondary sources that discuss the nature of Wikipedia policies (the topic of the article). We can use the primary source to support certain specific types of statements ... but majority of the article needs to be based on secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar: Yes, I understand that is the policy. Here is an example where the policy does not work: an article is written that is intended to guide a WP contributor through the various policies WP:V, WP:Primary, and so forth. It does so by identifying links to the policies and providing enough of their content to guide the reader to the appropriate policy page. Such an article cannot be posted on Main space because of the requirement that most of the article has to be from secondary sources.

Needless to say, no such secondary source will cover this matter; and if it did, it would do so by following exactly the same methodology: quoting WP policy pages. I'd suggest that not only will it be hard to find such secondary sources, but it is a stupid exercise to hunt for a source that will simply quote WP.

The purpose of policy is to avoid injection of unsupported opinion or bias into an article. No purpose is served by requiring secondary sources under the circumstances I describe. Brews ohare (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The same situation will arise with other examples: for instance, one can outline the plot of an opera and refer only to the libretto of the opera. That would mean a primary source was used throughout, and the article could not be published that way. Instead you would have to quote some secondary source like Opera Synopses, which in this case is feasible, but still a stupid restriction. Brews ohare (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Brews, something intended to "guide a WP contributor through the various policies" would not be appropriate material for a Main-space article. It would be more appropriate in Wiki-space (ie with a "WP:" prefix) - presented as an Essay, or Guideline. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar: The example is not the point. The opera plot is another example. More can be found. Brews ohare (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For the opera... first and foremost, the article would need to establish that the opera was considered notable enough for a stand alone article (per our WP:notability guidelines).... To do this, we need to establish that someone external to Wikipedia has noticed and discussed the opera in some depth. For that, we need reliable secondary sources. The article should be based primarily on these other sources.

An article about an opera needs to contain more than just an outline of the opera's plot. It is fine to have a section of the article that outlines the plot... and it is appropriate for that section to be based mostly on the primary source - the opera itself (although, even here we have to be careful... any statements about the plot using the opera itself as the source must be purely descriptive in nature. Any analysis or evaluation of the plot would require a secondary source.) But the article as a whole needs to be based primarily on secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Your approach to revision of WP:V or WP:Primary is to say that any case where these policies are inadequate can be disqualified using other policies, so WP:V or WP:Primary work just fine. I don't think that is a correct approach. WP:V should provide a valid consideration and not depend on other policies running interception. Brews ohare (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You miss my point... You are arguing that "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves...so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources" is unduly restrictive. You extend this by giving an example of an article based purely on primary source material, and say this is perfectly acceptable... I am disagreeing with that, and pointing out that an article that just uses primary sources is not perfectly acceptable. It would have problems with multiple policies and guidelines... including this one. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar: OK, so if we want to write an article explaining what the state requirements are for becoming DA in each state, and refer only to the state legislation on the matter, a primary source from each state, that article violates WP:V and WP:Primary because it uses only primary sources. Or, ... need I go on? You say other policies will serve to save WP:V and WP:Primary from getting egg on their faces by providing substantial reasons. That is no way to write a policy, based upon the hope that some other policy will strike first and save WP:V and WP:Primary from embarrassment. If other polices will filter out many articles based upon primary sources for good reasons, well bravo, let them do it, but let's have WP:V and WP:Primary make sense by themselves.

The way around this silliness is to change these two policies to make exceptions for these obvious cases. Sensible reasons for restrictions are already listed as the previous four conditions listed here. The fifth restriction needs rewriting. Brews ohare (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To go back to the opera example, an article containing nothing more than a plot outline is a violation of wp:PLOT. It would also fail to establish notability, which requires independent secondary sources (unless a specific sub-guideline for operas exists, which I am not aware of). Yoenit(talk ) 22:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yoenit: The point here is not whether the example can be disqualified somewhere else. The point is that the disqualification based strictly upon WP:V or WP:Primary is stupid in such cases, and these policies should stand on their own feet. Brews ohare (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

In other words... you dislike the policy. You want to be able to write articles based purely on primary sources, and think the policy should change to allow this. Ain't going to happen. The requirement that articles be based primarily on secondary sources has a strong consensus. It is a provision that is included in multiple policies and guidelines. You are entitled to think this provision is silly or stupid, but the community disagrees with you. Blueboar (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe what Yoenit is saying, and what I believe, is that policies should be properly organized; requirements based on verifiability should be in the verifiability, requirements based on notability should be in the notability policy, etc. When I am writing an article about electrical wiring, I would be quite annoyed if I found my copy of the National Electrical Code had some pages from the American Heritage Dictionary bound into it, even though I wouldn't want to write such an article without both resources at hand. Your statement to Brews ohare that "you want to be able to write articles based purely on primary sources" does not follow from what that editor wrote; that editor did not advocate changing the notability policy, and such a change would be necessary before writing articles based purely on primary sources. I accuse you (perhaps in jest) of wanting the verifiability policy to become one policy to rule them all. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I hesitate to speculate about motivations. However, Yoenit and Blueboar will not address the issue as framed, namely modification of provision 5 in this section. In Blueboar's last attempt, instead of suggesting how the examples I've provided fail to add to WP and so should be excluded, he simply says any revision "ain't going to happen". Blueboar's previous attempts are based upon, to paraphrase, even if WP:V makes no sense, so what? Some other policy will cover the gaffe. Yoenit takes the same tack.

Actually facing the issues is not happening here. It is a common occurrence in discussions of this kind where the notion of discussion is replaced by debate. Brews ohare (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't that I am not facing the issue... it's that I don't see an "issue" to face. Blueboar (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Outcome

Following consensus in the above comments section, I have replaced the closing sentence in wp:CIRCULAR

Wikipedia may be cited with caution as a primary source of information on itself, such as in articles about itself.

with

Citing Wikipedia to support a descriptive statement about Wikipedia itself, is not a form of circular referencing. Instead it is the use of Wikipedia as a primary source and should follow the relevant policy for the use of primary sources.

Thanks all —specially Yoenit— for your constructive comments. Should this RFC be somehow "formally closed", or does this somehow "happen all by itself", so to speak? - DVdm (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Eventually

I recently added "eventually" to a sentence and it was reverted,[2] so that the sentence is now,

"Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed."

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

"Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may eventually be removed."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

May is already an indeterminate, conditional word with no timeframe. Adding a second indeterminate, conditional word with no timeframe doesn't significantly change the meaning of the sentence. Also, the phrase "requires a citation" is also subject to interpretation, not every single statement made at Wikipedia requires a direct citation, only material which is likely to be challenged. If someone goes willy-nilly and removes all uncited statements from Wikipedia, without regard for context or without taking time to discuss before removing when called on it, then they are clearly editing disruptively, per WP:POINT and could find themselves in an unhappy place soon enough. Considering the primacy of WP:CONSENSUS over all else, one cannot merely use policy and policy alone to make one's edits instantly "right". In shorter terms, if someone did what you are describing, they're going to get blocked, regardless of what this page says. --Jayron32 01:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Re "May is already an indeterminate, conditional word with no timeframe." — That's why someone who wants to immediately delete, can do so.

However, your other points are OK so overall I agree with you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to add "eventually". It is not wrong to delete unsourced material immediately (indeed sometimes is it best to do so)... nor is it wrong to wait (indeed sometimes it is best to wait forever and not delete). The decision as to when (or whether) to delete is a judgement call, made based on the nature of the unsourced material. Blueboar (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it ought to say "should be removed." But be at peace: I tried to slash and burn through Wikipedia once, but I determined that it wouldn't be allowed for long. And that was only removing text that had been marked as unsourced for over a year. B^e——C_ritical 02:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You should not remove material that you (using your best judgment) honestly believe to be verifiable. WP:There is no deadline for providing inline citations behind apparently verifiable non-BLP information. Your duty to keep good (if incomplete) material under WP:PRESERVE is just as strong as your duty to remove bad material under BLP or COPYVIO.

That said, I don't support including the word eventually here, because "immediately" is the order of the day for unsourced contentious matter about BLPs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent insufficiently explained revert of edit re minimum and "Verifiability, not truth"

A recent edit was reverted[3]. The only explanations were in the edit summary which said, "BRD", and a message in an above section of this talk page.[4] Neither message explained why the editor didn't think the edit was an improvement. (Note, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes."[5])

I made the edit because 1) I thought that the word "minimum" should be highlighted and because the italics would connect with the thought re "guarantee" that was also italicized in the previous sentence, and 2) the word verifiability was the important concept to follow and "not truth" was a subordinate idea that supports the concept of verifiability. Here's what the sentence looked like after my edit, along with the preceding sentence which was unchanged.

All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The minimum threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true.

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

Because we had an RfC about this. Because we are not going to subvert in little increments what that RfC was "really" about. The "toxic trio". Slowly kick it out of the way through this renewed round of consensus editing? Not quite that easily. Doc talk 12:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to the large RFC, it was not regarding this font change. So far you have not provided a reason why this edit is not an improvement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it is against the spirit of the RfC decision. Because this is always why this issue continues. VnT. Toying with it in terms of bolding/unbolding have proved unsuccessful in the past. It was no mere "font change" because you unbolded 2/3rds of the trio. Kinda changes the emphasis, don'tcha think? I tried it - there's no compromise. Doc talk 12:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You still haven't stated why it isn't an improvement, whereas I stated in the above why it was. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Let others chime in on that. Just don't think that semantics will hide the fact that some editors cannot accept the fact that VnT, as it is, has no consensus support for removal from the lede. Doc talk 12:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not being removed from the lead. The recent edits by various editors have been careful about that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I personally see no point of unbolding only "not truth", leaving verifiability bolded. By adding the new lead sentence (good idea), there is no longer a requirement to bold the word "verifiability" here because it is the title of the policy. So the only reason it is bolded now is to make the point "VnT". Either leave all three bolded, or unbold all three, I don't care. In view of avoiding drama it should probably be the former. Yoenit (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm frankly amazed that the recent very large-scale RFC at which 65% of editors wanted VNT out of the lede, is still being cited as a reason to keep VNT in the lede. This filibustering over technicalities to prevent us from implementing what a clear majority of editors want is disgraceful and thoroughly obstructive, and it's leading to a perpetual "under discussion" tag on the lede of a major policy page. I do wish editors would be prepared to reach a good faith compromise such as the one Blueboar spent so much work on.—S Marshall T/C 15:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 65% could agree with / live with a solution where it was taken out of the lead, to end this bickering. That doesn't mean that all 65% wanted it out of the lead, only that that option was acceptable. Supporting the RfC doesn't necessarily mean opposing the status quo or other solutions with VnT in the lead; just like some people supported the RfC as a minimal step in the right direction, others supported it as a maximal but acceptable step in the wrong direction for the sake of peace and consensus. Fram (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, about 65% in total supported the idea; some didn't think it went far enough in terms of improvement, some had qualified support, etc. BUT – and this is an important point – some of the opposers hadn't seemed to have cottoned onto the idea that what was being suggested was a change of wording, and not a change in the actual policy. Despite those misconceptions, a very clear majority supported, rather than opposed, what was suggested. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 15:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fram, surely you can't possibly endorse the use of that RFC as a justification for crystallising VNT in its current state?—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we please not re-argue the RfC yet again. The simple facts are this: I proposed a change. A lot of people liked my proposal, but enough people disliked it that we can not say there was a consensus. That's fine. It does not mean we ignore the issues that prompted the proposal... It means is that we need to come up with a different proposal to resolve the issues... one that will gain consensus. Now, the only way to do this is to take into account what the various nay-sayers in the RFC had to say. Most of the nay-sayers expressed a strong desire to keep VNT in the lede, and listed my moving it out of the lede as their main reason for opposing. Thus, if we wish to gain a consensus, any new proposals need to keep VNT in the lede. To propose anything else simply continues the same debate, with the same results. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is a question we should directly ask as part of the RFC. What to do with VNT? Three options (status quo, separate subsection/text box per Be Critical, remove entirely) with the specific understanding that the majority view will prevail.—S Marshall T/C 17:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Won't work... the minority will simply say "consensus is not a majority vote" and continue to block any forward progress. Blueboar (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason why the minority should prevail over the majority indefinitely, and I don't think that will happen.—S Marshall T/C 18:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It how the system works. It encourages those on the extremes to compromise... to think in terms of "I can live with that" rather than "this is what I want". Blueboar (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry... but can you tell me if you previously put up a list of alternate phrasings to VnT? Do we even know if there's a common interpretation of VnT? B^e——C_ritical 18:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• The RFC replies show that there are two broad camps, but they are not mutually exclusive. There are those who take the pragmatic position that VnT is nothing but a stick with which to bludgeon POV-pushers and are anxious not to be disarmed, and those who take the philosophical position that Wikipedia editors can't know or divine the truth and need reliable sources to do that for them. Some editors fit into both camps, although I think most are one or the other.—S Marshall T/C 19:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish that we could solve some of the smaller and less contentious problems without having to re-re-re-re-discuss "threshold" and "VNT".

For example, I strongly believe that the word attributable needs to be replaced by something like possible to attribute, because people are persistently misreading and misunderstanding this. This is one little change. Nobody's actually objected to using smaller words here. Nobody's ever said that we don't have a problem with sloppy readers thinking that -able means the same as -ed. But we've had something like three sections on this small change so far, and we still have the problematic word in the lead—and we've gone back to fussing about other, completely unrelated phrases in completely separate paragraphs.

Please: can we just shut up about the VNT mess for a little while, and see about solving some of the potentially solvable problems? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• If we're not allowed to discuss it, then we should replace "under discussion" with "contentious but deadlocked".—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a possible way forward without editwarring the lede: find a phrasing in the policy body that works without offending anyone too much. See if it stands up for a few months. If it does, then we can change the lede to agree. If it doesn't, the next version might.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no other minimum thresholds? What about WP:WEIGHT?

This is in regards to this edit.[6] Unless I'm misunderstanding what BC is saying here, there are other thresholds. Information must also pass WP:WEIGHT. Just because something is verifiable, doesn't mean it belongs in an article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I think there may be bigger issues to deal with than articles a and the, but adding my take on this point.(olive (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

• We need to change something. At the moment the policy says "...verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability..." which (a) is an oxymoron, and (b) reeks of incoherent babble.—S Marshall T/C 20:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WEIGHT is the second threshold (: And you notice that even very knowledgeable, experienced and smart editors don't get VnT, that's why we really must replace it. B^e——C_ritical 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "a requisite for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability"? Just my two cents. Doniago (talk) 20:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You guys are edit-warring over "The" versus "A"?[7][8][9][10] WP:LAME. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

ROTFL, I doubt anyone noticed it was an edit war. B^e——C_ritical 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

S Marshall, please don't mess it up for the rest of us by getting the page protected. B^e——C_ritical 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• You're right, some genius will probably do that.

  To my delight, I see that Unscintillating thinks there's only one threshold for inclusion, so our policy once again contains the immortal lines, "...verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability..."—and I think I'll leave it, because I'm starting to find it funny.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 00:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Interesting how you can rewrite the rest of the lead completely and nobody seems to care, but touch that particular sentence in any way and shit hits the fan. Yoenit (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Which is why we need to leave it alone till we come up with a better version we think will get consensus, or at least till the other changes have set a few weeks. Otherwise the thing will get totally reverted to how it was before. That would suck B^e——C_ritical 01:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously, we can't leave it like it is. Hilarious though the current version may be, policies need to make sense. If the Holy Sentence is untouchable, then we need to rewrite around it to get rid of that particular juxtaposition.—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, it's not our fault. The people who want it need to come explain exactly what it means to them, and then maybe we can paraphrase that. But while it does have a literal meaning, people have different interpretations. I for instance think it means beliefs, or should be "true or false." Anyway, it's their responsibility, not ours. Leave it for a while, maybe someone will complain and then you'll have something to point to. B^e——C_ritical 01:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Long experience has taught me they'll simply revert and ignore, Becritical.—S Marshall T/C 01:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well now that's disruption. Sry, but where is that RfC? I just want to check if you guys offered some nice alternatives to VnT. B^e——C_ritical 02:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Replacement phrasing for Verifiability not truth

It's necessary to replace VnT with a phrase which is 1) easy to interpret and 2) cannot be misinterpreted.

Let's pick the best one:

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

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

Support/oppose

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

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

I'd also weakly support #4, but I believe that "thinks" should be changed to "believes". I don't believe it's as grammatically sound as #6. Doniago (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose#5 Dewey defeats Truman never happened, it is not true information, but it is verifiable, and no one questions it being in the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how #5 suggests that information doesn't have to be true...but then, it's not one of my preferred wordings in any case. Doniago (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I don't understand your example at all. To quote from the article lede: ""Dewey Defeats Truman" was a famously inaccurate banner headline". Are you saying that is not true information? Are you stating this whole article is hoax ("never happened")? If we only cared about what was verifiable, shouldn't we update United States presidential election, 1948 with the information that Dewey did indeed win? Yoenit (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Unscintillating the contents of the Dewey defeats Truman article is certainly true. A statement "Dewey Beat Truman" is sourcable but false. So all are sourcable, but editors should be free to leave out the latter statement because it is false.North8000 (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK... Consider the following statement: "In 1876, Tilden beat Hayes"... the truth of falsity of this statement depends on context. If placed in a paragraph discussing the popular vote, the statement is true. If placed in a paragraph discussing the electoral college tally, or the final result of the election, it is false. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I like #3, #5 and "#6" the best. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

RfC claims everything must have a cite

In Talk:Electrical engineering#Unsourced material one editor claims that all material in every article must be supported by a citation, including well-known easy-to-verify material. Another editor does not claim this is required for all articles, but that it is required by FA criterion 1c. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. "It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources which are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information which has been challenged or which is likely to be challenged." And just going around challenging the obvious is disruption after a point. B^e——C_ritical 02:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Becritical has the core of it, but let me add two things: Referencing everything is indeed required by the Featured article criterion and secondely: if an editor challenges a few things which may seem obvious to you, you should just add references. Only when they go around leaving dozens of tags or challenging entire articles is it considered disruptive. Yoenit (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Challenging entire articles is not disruptive per se. There have been cases where articles have been written purely on primary sources and unreliable sources. Please read REDFLAG too. Anything challenged that is based purely on primary or questionable sources should be removed or provided reliable sources for verifying. Wifione ^Message 11:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

My advice... rise above "the rules". While citing "obvious" material may not be required, there is no reason that "obvious" material can't be cited. It may not be necessary to cite it, but it will not hurt the article to have unnecessary citations. When some idiot challenges "obvious" material, it is usually much easier to just mutter "what an idiot" to yourself, cite the material, and end the debate. After all, if something is truly well-known and easy-to-verify, then it should be simple to find a citation for it. It only takes a few minutes to do a quick google search and slap in a citation... on the other hand it can take days (and a lot of anguish on everyone's part) to argue about "the rules" in an attempt to avoid doing so. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the OP on this page is not an accurate description of the RfC. (Whether the RfC is an accurate description of the real situation, I did not look into.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I only attempted to describe one aspect of the RfC. The RfC also contains allegations that the material in question is not at all obvious and thus requires a citation. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead looks pretty good

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

Yeah the current version's pretty good, with a lot of clearer wording, and a lot of the fat trimmed- mostly the stuff which seemed to have been added based on specific problems someone was having, and served only to emphasize what was already in the text. But there might be somewhere we can go with VnT, on the talk page that is. B^e——C_ritical 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

"verifiability, not truth"

Speaking as a member of this allegedly powerful "minority" (but not speaking for anyone else), moving VNT down in the paragraph is a good step towards compromise. But it's not going to be enough, you see. It has to be eradicated. I, for one, am tired of being accused of "filibustering", "blocking progress", etc. You are all rational people, I assume. I probably agree with each and every one of you on many issues, but disagree on many others. I disagree on removing VNT, and consensus (at this time) does not support removing it. To toy around with VNT (I will not call it "VnT" anymore, as all three words are lowercase with no emphasis on any one word) much further shows an unwillingness to compromise when the agenda has been clearly stated. You want VNT gone? Don't think that when it gets removed or altered significantly that those who have a legitimate opinion different from those who want it wiped away will not notice, or just ignore it and say, "Oh, well!" Doc talk 01:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well as someone who originally supported VnT (and I still like it), I'll tell you why I changed my mind: VnT is great: it says a very important thing. But people don't understand it. We need to either eliminate it (as it's not strictly necessary) or rewrite it to something that's understandable. What do you think it means? It should be restated in terms anyone can comprehend. B^e——C_ritical 02:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's what I think it means, in a nutshell. This is just a small example. After endless vandalism based on fantastical and untrue original research, I removed this claim. This erroneous and unreferenced statement had been used to create even more original research, which was undone. Now, this is an example of someone trying to introduce something that is untrue, without any reference to support its claim of truth. To them, it may be true. To the rest of the world, lacking credible evidence via verifiable sources, it's not to be assumed to be true. That's how I interpret it. Doc talk 02:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors. B^e——C_ritical 03:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct. And I don't think we need to replace VNT with anything else. And that idiotic "under discussion" tag should just be removed. It will always be under discussion until VNT is gone. Move it to the last sentence of the lede? Not enough. No compromise is acceptable for those that seek the utter destruction of VNT. Doc talk 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If that is correct, it is a formulation of VnT which no one can mis-interpret, and should replace VnT. B^e——C_ritical 04:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Does no one opposing VNT actually see the true purpose of VNT? To grab your attention - and then explain it. It does not stand alone without proper explanation. It must be explained with content such as you just mentioned. What you said could certainly help explain the concept better, but it cannot replace it. Doc talk 05:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're repeating my own arguments for VnT. But frankly... I was underestimating human dumbness. I've recently observed (and no offense) smart editors who have been here for years and truly want to understand be unable to understand. VnT needs to be replaced because people are too damn dumb for the second part, the "explain it" part. Or else they don't have philosophy training. B^e——C_ritical 05:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken (I think) ;> If we "dumb it down" any more by adding more lengthy explanations, I don't know how the ones that are too damn dumb would even have a chance to understand it. There's no advantage. If people cannot get VNT, after carefully reading the explanation: too bad. We don't need to change policy wording for those hypothetical users that will never understand it no matter how it is worded. Doc talk

And yet maybe I misunderstand as well, because I think the full concept can be conveyed with what I said above "Only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not the beliefs of editors." Include or exclude stands in for "threshold," Reliable sources stands in for "verifiability," and Beliefs of editors is another way of saying "truth." B^e——C_ritical 05:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not as catchy. And that's the entire point of VNT. The "catchiness" (i.e. "bolding") is why you want it gone. Explaining it, quantifying it... this is necessary after the statement, within the same sentence. You can't have one without the other. Bolding your suggestion and removing VNT in its stead would not work. Doc talk 05:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your beliefs are irrelevant: only reliable sources may influence the decision to include or exclude information, not what editors think is true or false." B^e——C_ritical 05:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think adding "Your beliefs are irrelevant" is really going to solve anything. I'm starting to think you're possibly being "cheeky". Are you actually being serious with that last proposal? Doc talk 06:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, you wanted something catchy. "Catchy" is the only thing that "Verifiability not truth" has going for it, and it means the same thing. To me it seems equally serious. Maybe because it's new to you you see it for what it is: not appropriate for policy just like VnT. Catchy is good, but it goes only so far. And, Doc, you basically just admitted that given alternate easily-understood phrasing, catchyness is the only thin VnT has going for it. The decision therefore is whether catchyness is sufficient recompense for all the misunderstanding. B^e——C_ritical 06:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The allusion to the many "misunderstandings" that purportedly necessitate this change for the project's greater good has never been established, despite the claims of the majority to eliminate VNT. It always seems to be, "Oh, that evidence is there: trust me." I see no pressing reason to remove VNT, and with the complete lack of evidence demonstrating how it is allegedly constantly misinterpreted by any real majority of good-faith editors, both old and new: why get rid of it? Doc talk 06:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the misunderstanding right here on this page among the regulars. A Quest for Knowledge, I believe, and he's smart. And others. I don't want to name names, although AQFN I hope won't mind. IOW, I was an outsider to this issue, but if people who have been reading it for years still misunderstand, I believe something is wrong. It wasn't anyone's argument that convinced me, but observation. So I think that VnT is flawed, and perhaps only certain kinds of brains can understand it. I live in a situation where I see the various capabilities of people, the different ways they understand. There are people who could be very valuable, but have no chance of understanding VnT. Once I figured out it was elitism, I could no longer advocate for VnT. B^e——C_ritical 06:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The misunderstandings (both innocent and deliberate) are extensive, and many many many examples have been given in this talk page over the last 14 months. North8000 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If understanding policy constitutes the "elite" - then I guess only the elite are entitled to edit here. There are plenty of editors every day who will understand no element of any policy. We have to block those sorts when their interpretation of policy conflicts with the community's interpretation. If someone cannot understand VNT by reading past that sentence: they probably cannot understand broader concepts and do not want to. We can't teach them how to do that, and eliminating VNT will not achieve that lofty goal. Doc talk 06:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of catchy, only the elite shall understand policy. I don't mean to be rude, but that's where our discussion got us. Don't say no one ever told you where the misunderstandings of VnT occurred though. B^e——C_ritical 06:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're the elite and not trying to be rude to me specifically: no need to be sorry then, is there? Fancy a shoe shine, Guv'nor? Doc talk 06:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(: No, you do get it. We only disagree about whether it would be best to say the same thing in simpler terms so more people could understand. B^e——C_ritical 07:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• VNT supporters have had the opportunity to make all these arguments, and it's interesting that the number of people converted to a pro-VNT view after all that discussion was only 1: in other words, less than half a percent of Wikipedians who participated in the RFC found the pro-VNT arguments convincing. Equally, the best arguments the anti-VNT side could muster have only persuaded about four people in total (depending on how you count the change in Blueboar's position, and whether you consider Becritical was converted by the arguments), so at most two percent of Wikipedians found the anti-VNT arguments convincing.

  This divide seems to be like the divide between the political right and the political left, or that between sceptics and religious believers:- it doesn't seem to be capable of being resolved through rational discussion. I suggest that the exercise is pointless. We should stop trying and put it to a simple majority vote.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the initial para of the lead currently has comprehensibility problems. It says that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, then it goes on to sat that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I'm a big fan of "verifiability, not truth", but I'm thinking that it might be better to put it differently. How about something like

Verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source—is the primary threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, however, because Wikipedia has other policies and guidelines that affect inclusion^{[link to a footnote expanding on that and providing links to those other policies]}. Editorial perception of truth—whether editors think unsourced material is true—is not a factor in deciding whether inclusion is warranted.

I'm a crappy writer, and I'm sure that can be improved. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not so happy with "Editorial perception of truth", which is rather vague. Just leave that out and the sentence works fine. Besides that, the proposal breaks up the Holy Trinity completely, so right now it has zero chance of obtaining the consensus necessary to implement it. Yoenit (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that some formulation around "a hurdle" might avoid some of the confusion over "a/the threshold". LeadSongDog come howl! 15:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Consider it this way... the front door is the threshold of my apartment... however, walking through my front door (crossing the threshold) does not guarantee that you will remain in my apartment. There are many reasons why I might kick you out. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing was that Doc admitted my summary captured the essence of VnT, and had only the reason left that VnT is catchier. And he said that if people couldn't understand VnT they shouldn't be allowed to edit. Is that opposed to WP spirit or what? B^e——C_ritical 19:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Doc... VNT is catchier than your proposed wording. I also think the average editor would find it easier to understand than your proposed wording. So if it were a choice between them, I would favor VNT. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How can you be serious about that? That is so... weird. I think you've lived with VnT too long. I mean, I know it's my wording, but come on! B^e——C_ritical 00:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

@Becritical - I did not say that "if people couldn't understand VnT they shouldn't be allowed to edit". I was making a much broader generalization about the hypothetical editors that would have a fundamental problem understanding those three words (and the explanation that must follow them to explain the concept). There are people who should not edit WP, and I was saying that anyone who walks away from reading VNT and begins adding deliberate falsehoods simply because those falsehoods are verifiable either: a) Have not done their homework by reading up on the other policies that support WP:V, as well as reading WP:V carefully to begin with, or b) Is probably incompetent to edit here in the first place. It's just my observation, and a sweeping hypothetical generalization, and I don't feel it's against the spirit of WP. Doc talk 04:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

But in actuality, you are saying that many editors who have been here for years, such as the ones on this page, should not edit here. "If understanding policy constitutes the "elite" - then I guess only the elite are entitled to edit here... If someone cannot understand VNT by reading past that sentence: they probably cannot understand broader concepts..." Doc, I'm telling you, the regulars can't understand it. It's documented above in recent conversations and an edit war. You are actually telling a good portion of WP editors to go away. B^e——C_ritical 05:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone here who has deliberately added untrue material to WP based on their reading of VNT as it is: raise your hands. Doc talk 05:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

(crickets chirping)

I know there must be a lot of you, as this is such a widespread problem among the regulars. There will accordingly be a lot of cases to look over, so it may take some time to process them all. Don't be shy coming forward with your examples, as even if you made this mistake as a newbie it was clearly understandable due to the wording. There's no shame in being a victim of policy wording here - speak up on how VNT led you astray to publish falsehoods. We can hopefully prevent future victimization with your input here. Doc talk 07:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I, for one, have added untrue information to Wikipedia, based on VnT. As has anyone else who follows NPOV. That's what VnT says to do. B^e——C_ritical 07:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you do it after reading the VNT portion of V and not NPOV at all, or did you do it because you didn't understand the NPOV aspect of the untrue edit? In other words, did your interpretation of VNT reinforce that you were allowed to add it, knowing it was untrue? If so, you might have referenced it as the reason for your edit at the time. I know I would point to policy to back up my edit if it were controversial. Doc talk 07:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me give an example I remember better: the lead of Abortion, where the untruth that there is nothing called "abortion" after viability is blandly and knowingly perpetrated based on MEDRS. And I would perpetrate such an untruth if I had no other choice based on the sources. Because, we do indeed knowingly and purposely put untruths into Wikipedia, if the sources give us no choice. That's what VnT tells us to do. And if you don't know that, then you also misunderstand VnT, and you're a good example of why it must be changed. Talk with you tomorrow. B^e——C_ritical 08:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You continue to point at me, showing a flaw in your arguing of this "major problem". It's not about me, Becritical. You take credit for the original wording, yet now you want to kill your own creation? Have you ever read the Frankenstein novel? It's taken on a life of its own for quite some time now, and coming at me with accusations of going against WP is hardly going to help whatever damage you're trying to prevent here from the monster you unleashed. AndI'm quite sure that the thoughtful input in the thread below will probably be dismissed as "TLDR filibustering" by certain people here. Actually read it, though. Doc talk 08:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly never intended to take credit for inventing VnT. And I did read the thread below, I almost suggested he put it up as an essay. I listened to Frankenstein on audio, you can get it from librivox. B^e——C_ritical 08:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

The most common mis-construing of VNT is to say that VNT...

...exists independent of "The threshold for inclusion..." JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you are saying, but it sounds like I agree with it. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead used to say this: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I don't understand why WP:Verifiability was changed from "it" to "unsourced material."[11] I was making a point about WP:Verifiability to another editor moments ago, but saw that the change throws off the whole meaning. That part of the line should be talking about whether or not editors think the sourced material is true. If it's unsourced, then of course editors have the right to strongly contest it and remove it. On the other hand, editors should not remove a reliable source or skew its meaning just because they think it's untrue. They can remove it if they have a more reliable source proving the other one wrong. 23.20.59.196 (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good, pretty arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

So, why can't we make this usefulness of VNT a part of its explanation in the lede? We needn't necessarily give specific examples such as these, but what's wrong with having the policy communicate the purpose of VNT and what it enables, in addition to communicating what it is (in a succinct way, of course)? John Shandy` • talk 08:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The concept behind a rightly interpreted VnT is indeed absolutely vital. I just think it could be put better, that's all. But I'm sort of frustrated now because I was told that my preferred wording was actually harder to understand than VnT, so I don't know what to do now. Maybe we are up against highly different ways of being able to understand text? B^e——C_ritical 08:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What you'll find, I'm afraid, is that there are editors who can and will find anything confusing and unclear when compared to VNT. There are no limits at all on what people will say to stop you editing that sentence. I'd just like to repeat that there's clear evidence that editors do not and will not change their minds on this. Since it's a binary choice (VNT or a phrase less open to wilful misunderstanding, my favourite being "It is not enough that the information is true. It must be verifiable before you can add it"), the only way we could compromise would be to alternate versions, so it said VNT on Monday Wednesday and Friday and something else on Tuesdays Thursdays and weekends. I put it to you that a real compromise is unachievable and we should present editors with a choice to be decided by simple majority vote, with Blueboar's compromise as one of the options.—S Marshall T/C 10:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

S Marshal, I don't agree that it is a binary choice - VNT or a phrase less open to misunderstanding. I think we could satisfy both sides in this debate by trying for VNT and a phrase less open to misunderstanding. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, some things never change. I agree with Blueboar, but then, you all knew that already. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup... same old, same old. Welcome back. Blueboar (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Think about how most people are introduced to policies. The average reader has no idea that a Wikipedia: namespace even exists, much less that there such things as policies. By the time a reader becomes an editor, they've probably made at least a few edits before journeying over to a policy page, even then probably not to read one in its entirety. Most editors learn about policy in an informal way, when they do something bold that gets reverted, and a seasoned editor explains the concepts of a policy in that article's context to them on a talk page (I would guess that slightly over half of my article talk page posts have served to do just this). So, we can write each core content policy perfectly, but that's not going to have a major impact on new editors, or any impact on willfully ignorant/incompetent editors. It is similar to editors who ignore the parts of WP:NOR that state it's not enough to have reliable sources, but they must be used appropriately to avoid synthesis; or the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV, which states that NPOV doesn't mean neutral to all sides, but neutral in proportion to the weights that various points of view hold in the reliable literature on a subject. Misunderstandings such as these will never go away. Policy text is, in my opinion, much more a tool for talk page WP:BRD discussions about dubious edits ex post, rather than an initiative to prevent dubious edits ex ante. So, while some see the VNT as unhelpful to deterring questionable inclusion/exclusion of content, others see such questionable inclusions/exclusions as inevitable, and see VNT as helpful in discussing and resolving such cases. We are concerned that we're going to lose what has proven itself a very powerful tool for the rhetorical combating of misguided attempts to include/exclude content based on truth value. John Shandy` • talk 20:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this analysis. I've never met John Shandy before this, never paid any attention to his edits. But this is absolutely spot-on. VNT is not fundamentally flawed. And it cannot stand alone; as Blueboar pointed out, there's no reason we can't have both VNT and the concise explanation that is necessary to explain it to the best of everyone's expectations. Doc talk 00:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And the real problem at this point is the perpetual "under discussion" tag. This didn't used to be there. To accept that it will always be here until VNT is removed... really, really sad. Doc talk 01:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate John Shandy's post but I respectfully submit that he has completely the point. IMHO persons that say the VNT is problematic will completely agree with he has just said, and then say that he has missed the point. IMHO a structural approach is required to understand the difference. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not help to say "he misses the point" unless you explain how he misses the point. Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to go for VNT with explanation, and I supported Blueboar's compromise. I still find that a desirable way forward. (I make no secret of the fact that I'm one of the many editors who find VNT a bit creepy, a lot ludicrous, and totally pompous, sanctimonious, and self-important. It's used by the ignorant and the arrogant as a slogan that tries to shut people down when they're genuinely trying to improve the encyclopaedia: it's a shortcut to avoid the need to actually engage with new editors in an intelligent way. It attracts ridicule from people who really know what encyclopaedia writing is about. In fact, VNT is craptastic in every possible way and what I really want is for it to be totally excised. What I mean when I say Blueboar's compromise is an acceptable way forward is that it's the least crappy way forward.) However, there's no getting around the fact that Blueboar's compromise does entail moving VNT out of the lede. Putting VNT together with the full set of hedges and qualifiers that it needs all into the lede would violate UNDUE, in the sense that a ridiculously large proportion of the lede would be about VNT, when what we really need to do is reduce its prominence and mitigate its hatefulness a bit.—S Marshall T/C 03:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we change that to "Blueboar's compromise did entail moving VNT out of the lede"... The compromise that I proposed in the RfC has been a dead horse for a while now... and, in the months since the RfC, I have made other suggestions (also attempts at compromise) that keep VNT in the lede. Blueboar (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to Blueboar. He is basically repeating what everybody agrees with. Basically a policy that says that verifiability is an absolute requirement for inclusion. What he is missing is the common misinterpretation which is that "accuracy NEVER matters and may NEVER never discussed" Not just that accuracy is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement, but that accuracy NEVER matters and may NEVER be discussed. The latter is a common deliberate mis-interpretation of VNT. North8000 (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@ SMarshall & North8000 - If anyone is unwilling to compromise on this issue it is the two of you. Give up the eradication of VNT, or deal with the compromise. The two of you are perpetuating this nonsense way beyond what it should be. For quite some time. I'm not trying to shut either of you up: work with the rest of us. You will not get everything you desire out of this. Deal with it. Doc talk 04:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Throughout my time on this page, which is now nearing 18 months on the subject of VNT alone, there have been two techniques that pro-VNT editors have used to attack my position. The first is the one that Doc uses:- the attempt to portray mine as a minority position that has no chance of success. I believe that the RFC provides more than sufficient evidence to destroy that. Mine is in fact the mainstream position among the general populace of Wikipedians. The pro-VNT stance, however, is the mainstream one among editors who have this page watchlisted. The second is the one John Shandy` uses:- the attempt to place the onus probandi onto me, which is one that I have responded to several times. In fact, my starting point is that that position is flawed, because it asks me to prove a negative. In other words, it assumes that VNT is the ideal phrasing and asks me to show evidence of when it has caused a problem. In fact, it's not up to me to prove that. The burden of proof is on those making a positive claim, and it is therefore for John Shandy` and his fellows to show evidence that it is the best phrasing. I'll forestall two predictable lines of argument: first, the fact that VNT has been in the policy for a long time is not evidence that it is the best phrasing, because the fact that people have made a mistake for a long time does not mean it's less of a mistake. After all, the fact that people had believed in the geocentric universe for centuries did not make Galileo wrong. And secondly, VNT is not the consensus position. It has been unpopular since it was introduced, and it has been kept in this policy by means of serial reversion of those who want to get rid of it. You will not be able to show us an RFC that supports VNT remaining in the policy in its current form. Editors do not want it to appear there.

In fact the most recent, large-scale RFC gives us an excellent mandate to decide how to replace VNT and this is what we should be focusing upon. The reason we are not is because pro-VNT editors are refusing to accept that there is a problem despite the RFC being as plain as your nose, and refusing to change position in the face of the clear evidence of what the community wants. I repeat my claim that nobody changes their mind about this on the basis of argument or evidence, and I repeat my call for a resolution via a simple majority vote.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have discovered a third technique, which is to stop caring. I'm pretty happy with what we have now. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the large scale RfC gives a mandate to remove VNT... for a very simple reason: the RfC did not propose that VNT be removed. In fact, it explicitly retained VNT (although moved to a separate section). The RfC was not about removing VNT... it was about a complex compromise that retained VNT, with an attempt to explain it.

Now, there was a majority that approved of this idea... not enough to claim consensus, but a clear majority. So... if the RfC gives us a mandate, it would be to continue in the direction of retaining VNT... and doing a better job of explaining what it means. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think the RFC does clearly give us a mandate to remove VNT from the lede. This is evidenced by fact that the RFC succeeded outright, and was then overturned by bad-faith gamesmanship, which you personally witnessed and you personally expressed concern about, in which an involved admin unilaterally reverted the close and re-advertised the RFC using non-neutral language just because she didn't like the outcome, and which finally brought it to a halt without quite succeeding. I think the outcome was that VNT was found unacceptable in its present form but there was not quite sufficient consensus to implement your compromise.

As a separate matter, I also think the "support" comments in the RFC strongly imply a mandate to remove VNT outright.—S Marshall T/C 18:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Look through the comments again... About a third of the "support" comments mentioned dislike of having VNT as their reason to support... but about a third of the supporters explicitly said they supported because the proposal retained VNT, and clarified it (the other third cited different reasons for supporting, and did not mention VNT at all). So the support comments were actually quite mixed on that point.

However, the "opposed" comments were all but unanimous in saying that they opposed specifically because the proposal removed VNT from the lede. It was a constant refrain. In other words, more people explicitly objected to removing VNT from the lede than explicitly supported doing so.

More importantly... whether we like it or not, a panel of admins determined that a ⅔ majority was not enough to claim a consensus. That determination isn't going to change. So, if we want to actually achieve a consensus, those of us who see a need for change will have to make further compromises... by factoring what the opposers said into any future proposals we make. And that means letting go of the idea of killing VNT outright... or removing VNT from the lede. You don't have to like it, but the only way to achieve consensus is to retain VNT in the lede, and off-set any damage it does by better clarifying its intent. That is blunt reality. Please accept it. Blueboar (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the legit close was that it passed. Then the shenanigans started. Without recapping the painful blow-by-blow, what we determined that a large scale RFC is an absolutely dysfunctional approach. Some other way is needed here. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar, I didn't personally say my dislike of VNT was a reason to support. Why would I accept that you have to say it explicitly before it counts? It's a bizarre notion. I'll accept that VNT should remain in the lede when you show me a consensus to that effect, and I will not accept it until you show me a consensus to that effect. I repeat my call to make this a separate question as part of the next RFC: Do you want VNT (a) to remain in the lede, (b) to appear in a separate paragraph that explains it, or (c) to be removed entirely, with the outcome determined by simple majority vote. Editors do not change their minds on this issue, so my suggestion is the only real way to ending this nearly endless dispute.—S Marshall T/C 19:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What originally dragged me into VNT discussions only briefly a while back, was an editor who mistakenly accused me of deliberately misinterpreting VNT to halt the insertion of sourced content (it was backed with primary sources), when all I was attempting to do was halt synthesis of those primary sources. The editor thrust it into the VNT discussions as some example of why VNT is evil and how I was using it to retain inaccurate yet verifiable content in the article, and without even reading the article's talk page or bothering to understand the complexities of my debate on synthesis with that editor, other VNT participants simply swallowed his account and built it into their subsequent arguments against VNT. So, am I meant to think that if VNT is removed, then misunderstandings will be vaccinated and I won't have to deal with such an event again? I have felt that misinterpretations are largely a problem with editors rather than the existence of the VNT verbiage. That's not to say I don't think the text can be improved, but this dispute seems to be ignoring the reality that in the long run, many editors are going to misconstrue policy in unfathomable ways. With regards to the burden of proof, one can readily count the positive assertions you have made about VNT (not to mention how subjective and immeasurable they are - sanctimonious?). I don't consider VNT the best, but it works and I would rather not throw the baby out with the bath water in a misguided attempt to deter editor behavior that will persist even if VNT were removed. I'm certainly not closed to the idea that better verbiage through compromise is within reach though. At any rate, I apologize if it seems I have stormed in to stir up a hornet's nest, but I think there are overlooked consequences of viewing policy as only a deterrent and not a tool for resolving WP:V conflicts in context through BRD discussions on article talk pages. I simply wished to voice this concern. John Shandy` • talk 19:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The example you mentioned might be useful for editors here to look at, for WP:V and WP:NOR work. Could you give a link to it? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Your response to the request for a link to the example, "I prefer not to dredge it up as it was nauseating enough the first go around..." may affect your credibility. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Cool. I wasn't debating you, just trying to clarify that one point. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Restating VNT

to get us back on track (ie trying to find language that might actually gain consensus)... how would people feel about:

• Verifiability is considered the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth

I think this retains the intent of VNT, but it shifts the subject of the sentence to "Verifiability" (which is, after all, the topic of this policy) and away from "the threshold for inclusion")

If people like this, I would also suggest combining it with my previous proposal of "do not add unverifiable material, even if you are positive that the material is true". I could see doing this in two ways:

1. Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are positive that the material is true (Verifiability is considered the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth)

   or

2. Verifiability is considered the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth (Do not add unverifiable material, even if you are positive that the material is true)

As I see it, the parenthetical (in either formulation) helps to clarify the intent of VNT. It clarifies for the reader that VNT is intended to address a specific issue: the addition of unverifiable material that an editor thinks is true... and clarifies that VNT is NOT ADDRESSING the issue of removing verifiable material that might be untrue (the policy can address that second issue as well, if needed... but should do so separately from VNT.) Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see a problem that this is meant to address. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem I am trying to address is that the current formulation of "The threshold for inclusion is VNT" focuses debates on the question of "Should this be included?" (which is not really the point of this policy)... swapping it to "V is the threshold of inclusion, NT" shifts the focus to the more appropriate question of "Is this verifiable?" (which is what this policy is all about).

And combining this swapped version with "Do not add unverifiable material, even if true" we clarify that VNT is talking about not adding unverifiable material, and does not apply to discussions about the removal of verifiable material (for those discussions, we look to other policies). Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A quibble about syntax: it scans as though we were saying "inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth", as though we were distinguishing between inclusion in truth and inclusion in Wikipedia, rather than between truth and verifiability. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... isn't this corrected by the comma?. (I freely admit that the rules of English grammar is not my strong point, and will bow to others who are better at them than I am). My point is that I think we should make "verifiability" the subject of the sentence, with "threshold" as the direct object (the current version it the other way). My reasoning is what I stated above. Blueboar (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To my eyes, the comma doesn't solve it. Of course it's clear to me what you mean, but I'm taking the approach that we're writing this for anyone to understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, but, you could solve it by: "Verifiability, not truth, is considered... " etc. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Blueboar, Tryptofish, what if you replaced inclusion with content? I don't think it would change the underlying meaning, but would further remove emphasis on the question of inclusion (to help focus on "Is this verifiable?" by covering both content-to-be and content-that-is). Verifiability is considered the threshold for content in Wikipedia, not truth. If you did this, you might want to replace threshold with something that makes more sense, like basis or something better. Verifiability is considered the basis for content in Wikipedia, not truth. Just my $0.02. John Shandy` • talk 19:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to quash good ideas... but the fewer words we change in one gulp, the more likely it will be that our suggestions will be accepted. My initial reaction to both ideas is that they are worth considering (in fact, I really like the idea of saying "Information must be verifiable before it can be added to Wikipedia") ... but both ideas add a second layer of change on top of the change I am suggesting. That increases the potential for rejection. Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, makes sense to me. John Shandy` • talk 20:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I'd be fine with any of those variations. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

I'm betting on the train. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, not truth: do not add unverifiable material, even if you are positive that the material is true. B^e——C_ritical 22:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I strongly object to further moves or removal of VnT. Normally, the opposite of "verifiability" is "unverifiable", but in the world of Wikipedia, the major opponent or opposite of 'verifiable' is indeed 'truth'. In my view, it's necessary to say straight up front that "the threshold for inclusion in WP, is Verifiability, not Truth". It's akin to the great battle in life between what is verifiable (the scientific view) and what is Truth, (the faith view). If we obfuscate this great trite WP truth with unclear and vague wording, then the POV-Pushers and Truth-sayers will have a much stronger argument to add their own personal truths. Let me add that we just had a major RFC with hundreds of participants that failed to remove or move this, so why suddenly would a small, local 'consensus' be able to override that? Dreadstar ☥ 22:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case, a proposal in talk might be a better idea than BRD. But I don't think what we are discussing here does any of that. Am I missing something? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's all the manner in which this is being done, "baby steps" to remove VnT, stated clearly by several of those that support this next change. I don't see a problem with Vnt as it is stated now, I just see a small group of editors who will not leave it alone for a second. I'm just making clear my stand on how far this can go without sparking major objections. This change may be ok, but the intent of several here is to keep going until it's out. That's unacceptable to me at least. And maybe I've overreacted to this last change proposal, it's clear that most of the proposers were trying to find a suitable compromise, you being one of them. So my apologies if my message seemed a bit...well...strident....just thought I'd throw my views out there.  :) Dreadstar ☥ 23:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also ask that if this change goes through, then the 'under discussion' tag should be removed, it's been holding the policy in some kind of limbo long enough. Dreadstar ☥ 23:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

I would just note, what you describe as the great battle in life between what is verifiable (the scientific view) and what is Truth, (the faith view) is a mischaracterization of the VNT, although I do understand your point. Science and faith are still two approaches to truth, demonstrated by the fact that scientists and faithful disagree on truth value despite evidence/lack thereof. Verifiability, at least in the context of VNT, is about "prior publication" (by reliable third party) rather than "validation." Remember, this is verifiability, not validity. The distinction is important, because there are many times where we need to write content that is verifiable (published), but may be invalid/untrue, for example in contexts where we must characterize 9/11 truthers' claims, etc. Above all, the policy needs to communicate that Wikipedia is not trying to communicate truths to readers, rather that Wikipedia is trying to paint the landscape of what the reliable literature states. From there, readers are at liberty to decide what does or doesn't convince them of truth. So, while editors shouldn't be in the business of Truth-saying and POV-pushing, we also don't want an encyclopedia where editors ignore inaccuracies in otherwise reliable sources or demand overzealous verification. I at least credit both side of the VNT debate with a genuine interest in striking and protecting this important balance. That at least a few people on each side are open to Blueboar's new suggestion implies discussing it is certainly worthwhile. John Shandy` • talk 23:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that's exactly the conflict, between what is verifiable and what is not; in both worlds. Two approaches to truth generally lead to conflict, as it often does between Science and Faith, perhaps one day the two will become one. Then we'll all be Asgardians and much better off... :) (oh, wait, that was 'science and magic', my bad!) "Truth" is entirely subjective, what is verifiable is not. As far as the 'two approaches', tell it to Galileo. Dreadstar ☥ 00:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's the basic disconnect. Do you really believe that truth is entirely subjective? Do you believe it's always subjective, or can there be objective truth? Cos my position is that:- (1) In some cases, there's an objective truth; and (2) Whether something's objectively true affects how you present it. (Compare an article about a genuine animal, such as gorilla, with our article about a cryptid, such as bigfoot. Gorilla uses simple declarative sentences, whereas bigfoot uses reported speech and hedge-words such as "purportedly" and "allegedly" to indicate that its content may not be true.) And I think the idea that there's no such thing as objective truth, or the idea that Wikipedians can't tell the difference between truth and falsehood, is of more benefit to POV pushers than to good faith editors.—S Marshall T/C 00:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

In the context of faith versus verifiability, yes indeed I believe that. Verify to me that Bigfoot exists and I'll verify to you that gorillas exist; we'll see who gets punked on that one. Language doesn't come into the equation at all. Dreadstar ☥ 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree Dreadstar, and I think you are not using the same meaning of verifiability that the rest of the debaters are. WP:V uses verifiable in the sense that, a reader should be able to verify that content has been previously published in a reliable source by a third party, which has nothing to do with science vs. faith. I agree that individuals' perceptions of truth can vary such that they are subjective (a separate issue from objective truth), and that what is verifiable is not. You however, seem to be saying that verifiable means "correct" (indeed, dictionary definitions for "verify" mean "to prove truth/to ascertain truth"), but WP:V does not use the term in such a way. For example, something needn't be accurate to be verifiable (untrue nonsense is published all the time). Something needn't be verifiable to be accurate (but does generally need to be verifiable to exist as Wikipedia content). You seem to, just as I do, give more personal credence to scientific evidence; but this isn't about whether claims are verifiably correct, but whether claims are verifiably published elsewhere (for example, scientific consensus holds that creationism is untrue, but we can still verify that it is believed true, taught, and written about, to the degree that we have an article on the subject). So, the science vs. faith issue of what's evidenced vs. what's perceived as true is not at issue here, and is transcended by VNT. The issue is that we need a way to compromise the policy text such that VNT issues don't ignore accuracy when it does matter (including nonsense just because it's published somewhere, or excluding suitable content just because it isn't published somewhere). John Shandy` • talk 01:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we have some kind of basic misunderstanding John, nothing I've said indicates that just because something is verifiable it's 'true'; or 'accurate', it's merely verifiable. Reliable sources determine the content of this project, not what editors think is true. The only "accuracy" or "truth" in verifiable, sourced material is that the verifiabilty itself is true and accurate. Verifiablity is the threshold, not 'truth'. I think I've been very clear on that and have no way indicated that just because something is verifiable makes it true...it merely makes it verifiable. Faith is inherently unverifiable, but not necesarily untrue. Dreadstar ☥ 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I can repeat the above a few more times if you like, but I won't be getting off-track into a philosophical discussion regarding Truth, Faith and Verifiability again, it's too easily taken and spun into what it's not by editors like Marshall below. Talk about conflation....sheesh.. Dreadstar ☥ 01:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm genuinely nonplussed. I don't really know how to deal with someone who's trying to write an encyclopaedia but doesn't believe there's any such thing as truth. I find that a bit scary.—S Marshall T/C 01:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We cannot know that we have the truth by science or revelation. So it's better to say that there may be a truth, but we cannot know it. Or perhaps we can know it, but not know that we know. But certainly, encyclopedias are not vehicles for truth, but for human understanding. B^e——C_ritical 01:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, go ahead and be 'nonplussed', my contention is that reliable sources generate the content of this project, not what editors think is true. Skew someone else's wording, not mine. Dreadstar ☥ 01:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Well, I see two basic variations being proposed.

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

I do like (2), which solves both the problems with VNT that I've been pointing out for the last 18 months.—S Marshall T/C 00:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

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

@Blueboar: I meant, what real world problem are you trying to address? This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. IOW, which articles do you think will be improved by changing this policy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh... real world? I am trying to address Hunger, Poverty and Social Injustice. Blueboar (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, real world Wikipedia articles. I assume that you're not really saying that Hunger, Poverty and Social injustice will be improved by this change, so how about you provide some real world Wikipedia articles that you think will be improved by changing this policy? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll add my objections too. I don't see any improvements here and I don't see the purpose of any of these suggestions, except to remove the phrase "verifiabilty, not truth". Note that the objection to VnT in the past was the "not truth" part, which n[one of these suggestions address. The present version of policy seems to have gained support from both sides of the VnT issue because it first defines verifiability, and then the VnT sentence is retained in the first paragraph in a way where it has a preceding context that makes it more clear. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

my proposal has two purposes... 1) to indicate that VNT is talking about the addition of unsourced material (don't... even if it IS true) and 2) shift the sentence from being a statement about the Include-ability of material to being a statement about Verifiability (so that people ask "Is the material in question verifiable" rather than "Is the material include-able"). It is NOT my purpose to remove VNT. (I strongly support VNT) Blueboar (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I support using the phrase V not T, and I support it in the opening paragraph. I liked the fact that the phrase was immediate, because it gains impact by opening the policy, but was willing to compromise with a definition to open the policy instead. I feel discussion has been creeping towards removing V not T altogether, which I don't support, neither the "creep" nor the removal.(olive (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC))

Blueboar, re (1), the sentence already says that; re (2) the first part of the paragraph already says that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)