Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:17, 23 February 2012

This page is not a forum for general discussion about "verifiability" as a concept. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about "verifiability" as a concept at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Questions Where should I ask whether this source supports this statement in an article? At Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Don't forget to tell the editors the full name of the source and the exact sentence it is supposed to support. Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me? No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/cost. If you need help verifying that a source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange or a relevant WikiProject. Do sources have to be in English? No. Sources can be written in any language. However, if equally good sources in English exist, they will be more useful to our readers. If you need help verifying that a non-English source supports the material in the article, ask for help at Misplaced Pages:Translators available. I personally know that this information is true. Isn't that good enough to include it? No. Misplaced Pages includes only what is verifiable, not what someone believes is true. It must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source that says this. Your personal knowledge or belief is not enough. I personally know that this information is false. Isn't that good enough to remove it? Your personal belief or knowledge that the information is false is not sufficient for removal of verifiable and well-sourced material. Is personal communication from an expert a reliable source? No. It is not good enough for you to talk to an expert in person or by telephone, or to have a written letter, e-mail message, or text message from a source. Reliable sources must be published. Are there sources that are "always reliable" or sources that are "always unreliable"? No. The reliability of a source is entirely dependent on the context of the situation, and the statement it is being used to support. Some sources are generally better than others, but reliability is always contextual. What if the source is biased? Sources are allowed to be biased or non-neutral; sometimes these are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a controversial subject. However, the resulting Misplaced Pages articles must maintain a neutral point of view. Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation? No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material. Are sources required in all articles? Adding sources is the best practice, but prior efforts to officially require at least one source have been rejected by the community. See, e.g., discussions in January 2024 and March 2024. Are reliable sources required to name the author? No. Many reliable sources, such as government and corporate websites, do not name their authors or say only that it was written by staff writers. Although many high-quality sources do name the author, this is not a requirement. Are reliable sources required to provide a list of references? No. Misplaced Pages editors should list any required sources in a references or notes section. However, the sources you are using to write the Misplaced Pages article do not need to provide a bibliography. Most reliable sources, such as newspaper and magazine articles, do not provide a bibliography. Does anyone read the sources? Readers do not use the reference list extensively. This research indicates that readers click somewhere in the list of references approximately three times out of every 1,000 page views.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

If you want to discuss the concept of "Verifiability, not truth" or wish to modify the first sentence of the policy, you may prefer to read and use the sub-talk page Wikipedia_Talk:Verifiability/First sentence, which contains detailed discussion on those topics (and has access to many archives of previous discussions.)

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83

Archives by topic First sentence (Nov 2010–March 2011 First sentence (April–August 2011)​

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Efforts to remove the "under discussion" tag

• Convenience link to section wikipedia talk:verifiability#Discussing Verifiability not Truth again - is there an Rfc question in here?

Without repeating everything, there are strong reasons for this tag. If you want to remove it despite those, and prior to a resolution, please approach that by trying to get a consensus, not by edit warring. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You alone have reinstated it at least six times since its humble beginnings way back in August, and you've stated you will keep it there until you get your way. That's not how WP works, and it's not the purpose of tags like this. Doc talk 12:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a mis-characterization. But, either way, if you want to remove it, please get a consensus rather than trying to remove it by edit warring. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

The sentence is highly controversial, a vast majority in a huge RFC wanted it changed. And a resolution has not yet been reached. If you do not agree with the tag please obtain a consensus for removal. North8000 (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No - if you don't like the sentence, file a new RfC to remove it. It's amusing to me that you have no problem when someone removes VNT against the result of the community-wide RfC when it said there was no consensus to implement that change, and the page has to be locked down for edit-warring; and yet you claim this tag needs your "consensus" for removal?! Really? Wow. Doc talk 13:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Its been removed section header

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

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

After the above two are done take the "under discussion" tag off. This solves the areas that have been of contention. After that thee would be just routine improvement-type discussions on the areas that people have raised. What do y'all think? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a reasonable course of action. Just sayin... NewbyG ( talk) 15:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer to keep the tag. It is accurate... We are still discussing the paragraph. Remember, the tag says "under discussion"... it does not say "disputed" or "Don't pay attention to this".

That said... I don't think it is worth edit warring to keep the tag in place. Removing the tag does not end the discussion. The discussion will continue whether the tag is there or not. The tag is simply a notation to let editors know that a discussion is taking place. No more, no less. Blueboar (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reminder to the editing policy and talk page guidelines

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

• NewbyG ( talk) 11:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't get to apply homemade tags to Misplaced Pages Policy. Dreadstar ☥ 22:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And you don't get to edit war to take tags off, sunshine. Your influence on this page is becoming increasingly disruptive as you try to get your way through sheer brute force.—S Marshall T/C 00:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks for the laugh, that's truly hilarious! I know you'll probably ingore my suggestion, but I recommend you look to your own tendentious and disruptive editing here before you start pointing fingers at others.  :) Dreadstar ☥ 16:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. "Tendentious", a word never used in the real world: only ever by Wikipedians who're trying to get others blocked. The trouble is that you genuinely think you're in the right, Dreadstar, and that your contempt for my view is fully justified, and that your strongarm tactics and your sneering are acceptable. You genuinely don't see a problem with your own conduct on this page, and you genuinely do see a major problem with mine. Frankly, I despair.—S Marshall T/C 20:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen some pretty serious AGF and civility violations here. People that saying that someone favoring keeping the very appropriate tag is due to nasty, arrogant or self-serving motives. Then someone said that since I contribute a lot in discussion here but make few edits to the policy (a proportion and carefulness which I think would be the norm for a major policy) that I am doing something worthless or wrong and should leave. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A thank you to Dreadstar for the comment revision regarding this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah pot, going back to your own recent bad faith attacks and much earlier ones on others. Dreadstar ☥ 22:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

On another note, the tag has kept the peace, where, after a huge and contentious RFC, the version preferred by the much smaller minority is sitting in the policy while the discussions are going on. North8000 (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you've held this Policy hostage with that tag for a long time, that time should end. Find consensus for your proposed changes or leave it be. Dreadstar ☥ 22:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm just one of many folks (actually the majority of folks as indicated the the RFC) who want some change. My own proposed (compromise) change is a mild one.....a sentence somewhere else in the policy which clarifies the meaning / intent of "not truth". But that's just me. Please don't mistake or paint my willingness to endure a little heat to try to help move on a balanced process to bring this to a conclusion with all of the other nasty motives and stuff like "held hostage" etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the tag is being edit warred in by only two (or three? Doc has the stats) of you, and each instance makes that more obvious; so yeah, you are indeed holding this process and the policy itself hostage. Nice. Dreadstar ☥ 00:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Aside from Kotniski once reintroducing SMarshall's creative way of tagging with a proper tag back in August (that actually led to a discussion at the time), yes, it has been only two editors who continually reinsert the tag. SlimVirgin, Tryptofish, A Quest For Knowledge, Dreadstar, Doc9871, Newbyguesses and Littleolive oil have all tried unsuccessfully to demonstrate that consensus for removing this tag is greater that the only two who really insist on it being there until their goal is achieved. Doc talk 03:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy should/shouldnot be tagged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Well, the section clearly is under discussion, and particularly urgent discussion, as close to two-thirds of about 400 editors editors in the recent RfC professed themselves unhappy with it. --JN466 03:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Topic has veered off the original discussion of tagging POL pages

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

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

And back to the original topic

As far as tagging policy, a quick scan of NPOV, NOR, BLP, CIV, COPY, CON, VAND, NOT... not a single "under discussion" tag on any of them for anything. Guess this is a "special case". Doc talk 04:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

And with SMarshall at 6 taggings (including the two of his own creation), and North8000 at 7 taggings, these two have got a basic average of one tagging apiece for each independent editor who removed it. That's not indicative of an understanding of consensus on this issue. Doc talk 05:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Section sub header TPG

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

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

• Please stop these attacks. As Jayen466 correctly points out above, this is not about a minority of two editors edit-warring to have their way. The number of editors we know to be opposed to having VNT in the lede is 277 (counting the 276 who took part in the RFC, plus Jimbo Wales who's always been very clear about this issue but did not take part in the RFC itself.) The number of editors we know to support having VNT in the lede is 149. The RFC was closed on the basis that VNT should be removed from the lede. This closure was then unilaterally reverted by an involved editor and the RFC re-advertised using non-neutral language, and it is only this shoddy and unacceptable conduct that has led to the present deeply unsatisfactory status quo.

  Please deal with the fact that editors do not want VNT to be in the lede of this policy. The consensus-seeking option is to look for a way to remove that you're prepared to accept.

  Please stop pretending that having VNT in the lede is a stable long-term option. That's not what editors want.

  Please stop pretending that a lack of consensus for Blueboar's compromise is the same thing as consensus supporting the status quo. It's time to accept that with only 31% of editors opposing Blueboar's compromise, even if all of those supported the status quo—which clearly not all do—the status quo isn't remotely acceptable to the community.

  Thank you in advance for ceasing to attack North8000 and myself for our attempts to bring about what is, after all, quite demonstrably what the majority of editors want, and also thank you in advance for re-engaging in good faith attempts to find a way to make this policy say what editors want it to say.

  Alternatively, if you wish to continue your programme of attacks against North8000 and me, I suggest that you begin with me. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/S Marshall is where you should bring your lynch mob, so that this page can return to its proper function.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Re the recent poll / Rfc

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

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

Ah... if you talk about preference for moving it, and not about opposition to keeping as is, I can agree with you. My quibble was with using the word "opposed". It is quite possible for someone to prefer one suggested wording without opposing another. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no "programme of attacks". It's the preliminary presentation of very serious and solid evidence for a topic ban, due to persistent disruption and continual attempted subversion of community consensus, in a very clearly declared battlefield manner. It's reality. Diffs will be forthcoming... Doc talk 12:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well following your logic, (that consensus is needed to KEEP the status quo) we could delete VNT today. :-) North8000 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's funny actually, nice one :) To touch on the tagging again, it's been used as a tactic since... well, anybody ever tagged anything. On this page, here we have an interesting example of an editor removing a tag from a prior dispute. That tag didn't stick around terribly long. I guess it was more easily resolved than some other issues needing perpetual tagging. Here, we have an editor applying a tag on a different dispute because, and I quote, "...this paragraph has been disputed for about six months." I guess that dispute ended with no need to retain the tag to this day. Why is this tag so special that it cannot be removed like the others? Doc talk 12:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Doc... The appropriateness of a tag (and the appropriateness of removing a tag) depends on which tag is being used... in your first example, the tag stated that the text was "under discussion" ... it was appropriate to add because the text was under discussion. It was removed because the discussion had ended - since there was no longer a discussion, the tag was inappropriate. Your second example is different...the "tag" that was added stated that the text in question was "disputed", not that it was "under discussion". It was removed because "disputed" tags are not considered appropriate for policy pages. We can take it for granted that there is going to be someone out there who disagrees with any given polices statement. We don't really need a tag to tell editors arriving at the page that this is the case.

What I am getting at is this: A "disputed" tag not helpful in the context of a policy page... it is simply WP:POINTy. An "under discussion" tag on the other hand, is informative and helpful in the context of a policy page... as long as the discussion is ongoing. Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Could you explain what's inappropriate or pointy about a "disputed" tag? They're used on articles all the time. What makes policies a special case?—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• My contention is that Policy is either policy or it isn't, tags are unnecessary and confusing - they do nothing but help falsely invalidate the policy they're tagging. Policy has had consensus, and it needs consensus for changes. So if someone disagrees with Policy, there's no reason to tag, just find consensus to change it. Once there is consensus, it can be changed. But until then, tagging -- especially long-term tagging -- is just a way to introduce uncertainty without gaining consensus for change. It is one person saying his view matters more than anyone else's, as is long-term tagging of an article. Dreadstar ☥ 18:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• My position is that VNT has never enjoyed consensus support. It was moved from NOR to V by UncleG in 2005, and then moved up into the lede by, I wonder who it was, let's see, a certain person, promoted higher up into the policy by someone, removed and then restored by someone, and again, expanded by someone, restored by someone, then the first "disputed" tag was removed by someone, and... well, that's enough to illustrate the point, I think. VNT is the result of a one-woman crusade to add it, promote it, expand it, and defend it from all comers. When it was seriously challenged and brought before the whole community, it was found not to enjoy consensus. It's there because of the first-mover advantage and subsequent obstructiveness. And that's it. The purpose of the tag is to alert editors to the fact that it does not enjoy consensus and never has.

  Further, you've shown no intelligible reason why a policy shouldn't be tagged in circumstances where wording is genuinely disputed. Your insistence on removing the tag seems illogical to me. There is no policy, guideline or RFC indicating that policies may not be tagged and every reason to warn editors that this wording is disputed.—S Marshall T/C 19:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• My response wasn't really to you, I have no illusions that I will ever be convincing you of this, it's merely to get it on the record. Aside from that, I can't help it if you refuse to admit or understand what WP:CON means or how it works, there's no 'one-woman crusade,' and Policy tagging was disputed and cast aside many years before your recent attempts to jam it into this policy. And your last sentence is exactly the problem with a tag; "every reason to warn editors that this wording is disputed", find consensus for changes to the content you dispute - in the meantime, it's still policy. Your apparent inability to find my reasoning 'intelligible' is your problem, not mine. Dreadstar ☥ 20:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave some good reasons that the policy shouldn't be tagged. "VnT is longstanding consensus text. There is no consensus text with which to replace it, because there is no common understanding of what it means. Therefore, there is no compromise or consensus in sight on VnT. In light of that fact, the tag should be taken out of the article till there is sufficient consensus to start an RfC on alternate text. Keeping it there for an undetermined period which might be months or years only confuses readers." I think if you want to get it back to the status where a tag would be appropriate, then come to a consensus on what VnT does/should mean, and then do a rephrase, and then when an RfC is ready to start, the tag would be appropriate. But a discussion over a phrase whose meaning no one knows is not something we need to advertise. B——C_ritical 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Becritical, that makes no more sense than Dreadstar does. Surely if as you say we don't know what the phrase even means, then a tag is exactly what's needed, so as to attract editors' attention to the fact that there's a problem and hopefully introduce fresh participants into the debate.—S Marshall T/C 20:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's just resolve the "spirited debate" topics in a way that 75% can live with, and then legitimately take the tag off. North8000 (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

While we, in discussion, may not feel the policy is as clearly articulated as policy as we'd like, the policy has been in place and used for a long time. Policy pages are not article pages which by their nature in a collaborative, article-writing situation will be undergoing constant change. Policy is the stable factor in a dispute. Editors in DR situations referring to policy need to refer to the most recent stable version of policy and don't need top know that a group is disputing the fine and sometimes picky details of wording. So no a policy page is not like an article page. And by the way your attacks on an editor who isn't even here are becoming pretty tedious. Could you can those attacks, please. (olive (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC))

I could do a lengthy weigh-in on those topics, but instead, say, lets put those energies into resolving the key issues so that we can legitimately take it off. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've discussed different approaches to dealing with text and have commented on variations of the text, I'm not sure where to go next. Thinking about it.(olive (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC))

That's backwards. The policy was tagged and shouldn't have been according to several editors, so there can't be a legitimate removal if the tag was illegitimate to begin with. However, I agree that many of these discussions would become moot if we could reach agreement on the text itself.(olive (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC))

By all means then, User:Littleolive oil we could reach agreement on the text itself, in discussion here, or by editing to the ===ongoings draft section=== _below NewbyG ( talk) 22:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC) adds or leave thethingy as is

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

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

Remember the rfc

Responding on previous post, I think that what happened to that RFC is important to remember now for several reasons. A few are: .

1. Rightfully deflate the high status that some people are trying to assign to the current text.
2. We must recognize that, compounded with the things that can be done to / added to / it, a large scale RFC has been made an absolute roadblock to any change and is not a viable method. We need another way. Like find something that 75% here can live with and just put it in.
3. Keep it from happening again. "Whatever we forget we are doomed to repeat" or however that saying goes.
4. Develop an intolerance to that type of behavior by calling it what it was.

BTW, I completely separate the behavior from the individual. A good person can do something horrendously bad and still be a good person, and I consider them to be good person. North8000 (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

I agree that the focus on SlimVirgin is not appropriate. She helped write and influence a ton of it, but she has not edited this policy or talk page since November of last year, and has stepped aside from this for others to discuss and implement, obviously. Consensus beyond SlimVirgin has been established (partially affirmed by the decision of three neutral admins after much "a'fussin'"), and that consensus cannot be ignored. If VNT must go because it is inherently disruptive, please draft a RfC (on another page) based on its continual damage to the project, and then file it. Why does this not happen? It's ruining this policy, correct? Doc talk 07:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The only consensus from the RFC was the first close which was to make the proposed changes. The second close didn't even claim a consensus of any type, it said that there was no consensus. North8000 (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe three times is a charm. No consensus for the change by three neutral admins is what happened. That does not mean that VNT does not "enjoy consensus" here (to quote another editor). New RfC! No VNT! NO VNT! This new RfC will determine consensus, unlike the other one. Where is it? Doc talk 10:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually there was a subsequent belated RFC for the changes years before that led to the current wording. I think that like only 1/7th supported it, and then someone prematurely terminated it. North8000 (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Four times - less of a charm. Doc talk 11:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

VNT is dynamite

• So if I understand correctly, the argument is that VNT got added and then not removed (or at least, actually, it was removed several times but the removals were reverted). Since VNT has been in the policy for a long time, it's assumed to enjoy consensus due to WP:SILENCE, amirite?

  This surely parallels the way that Kotniski's underdiscussion tag was added a long time ago and not removed (or actually, removed several times but the removals were reverted). Thus the underdiscussion tag enjoys consensus due to WP:SILENCE and should not be removed without a consensus to get rid of it, which you do not have (note Blueboar's view carefully).

  It's true that Kotniski's no longer active on this page, having probably been driven off (like Hans Adler, Jayen466, Jimbo and many others who wanted VNT rewritten or removed) by the way the page has degenerated into entrenched one-true-wayism and naked, blatant hostility towards those who want to Defile the Holy Sentence. To be honest, I'd very much welcome you lot starting a RFC or RFC/U on content or conduct on this page, because I think you need input from other editors to convince you that VNT is genuinely controversial and I'm genuinely a respected editor with a mainstream view and not some weird lunatic from the fringe. I wish you'd get on with it.—S Marshall T/C 12:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  Those editors you mentioned have not been driven off by anyone. At least they haven't mentioned specific names... They are more than free to comment and make any contribution to this page. If they choose not to, that is not any grounds for "silent approval" of VNT elimination. Notify them of this thread, please. The more opinions on this, the better. Doc talk 12:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not particularly anxious to be accused of canvassing. Nor do I wish to make editors feel obliged to rejoin a discussion they've abandoned for whatever reason.—S Marshall T/C 13:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The goal is to protect the project from disruption. If VNT must go because it it is inherently disruptive, then it is your duty to convince the community why it must go. Consensus, despite what some may or may not believe, is that it is currently not disruptive enough to have been removed, after the RfC. New RfC time. VNT specific. Doc talk 13:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough. On Doc9871's quite specific insistence, I propose to canvass people I know to be hostile to VNT to attract them to this talk page. If you object, say so: I'll leave it a little while to give people the chance to protest.—S Marshall T/C 16:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Bold edit reverted

In an attempt to better explain VNT, I added the following to the end of the first paragraph:

Truth that is unverifiable may be excluded because it constitutes original research, (indeed even verifiable truth may be excluded - if it gives undue weight to a particular viewpoint).

This was reverted with the edit summary: "WP:V is why we have WP:NOR, not the other way around"... actually it is the other way around. WP:NOR is why we have WP:V. WP:V grew out of WP:NOR (which itself grew out of WP:NPOV). Verifiability is how we determine that something is not OR. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was hard to read and "undue" is just one reason for excluding verifiable material. You might consider whether there should be a section about when it is permissible to exclude verifiable material, if that was your point. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Here’s the, err, <prev> diff?? A matter of 180 bytes, it would seem. A good add, I am thinking. NewbyG ( talk) 15:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bob, my point was not to explain when it is permissible to exclude verifiable material (that was just a parenthetical aside, and can be omitted or moved to a new section if it confuses the issue), the point of the addition was to explain why unverifiable truth is excluded (because it constitutes OR). Blueboar (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think a new editor would find it confusing to introduce the WikiPhrase "original research" at that point. A new editor might think "Sure, it's unverifiable, but it isn't my discovery." It might not occur to the new editor that we don't care if the editor made the discovery, or is relaying an unpublished discovery by someone else; it's all the same to Misplaced Pages.

Alternatively, the editor might know the material does not qualify as original research in the normal sense of the term, but nonetheless is unpublished. For example, the formula for Coca-Cola would not qualify for a patent because it has been offered for sale to the public for more than one year, but it is unpublished.

(WikiPhrase is a newly coined phrase; it's a phrase with a different meaning in Misplaced Pages than the rest of the world.) Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough... but my contention is that we need to introduce the WikiPhrase: 'original research' in order to explain the WikiPhrase: 'Verfiability, not Truth' The two are directly and intimately connected. Blueboar (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this complicates things. I fear this idea is based on too long thinking about things in "wiki" ways that are not necessarily comprehensible to the outside world. Original research may well overlap with something not being verifiable, but it is quite a distinct concept. Pretending otherwise would be for the sake of making the rules look more logically simple, but it would not be correct anymore.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told, wp:nor and wp:ver are 90% duplicates of each other and should probably be merged. And "OR" boils down to being simply a synonym for non-wp-verifiable material. North8000 (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem with that remark. The two policies aim at very similar results, but remain logically different. You could perhaps say that they come from different directions? So combining discussion of them in one article might be possible, but trying to combine them into one sentence which is written as if they were identical concepts is like trying to redefine reality, and will create confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Updates on progress at the associated project page

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

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

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

• Personally, although I was active on WT:V in November 2010, I was focused on the copyright issue at the time. As I recall, once it was established that there was no consensus either way, editors divided into two camps: (1) Those who felt that discussion should continue until consensus was reached, and (2) Those who felt that since there was no consensus, editors in group (1) should shut up and go away. There was a near 1:1 correspondence between those who felt VNT should be amended and group 1, and a near 1:1 correspondence between those who felt the lede should be left alone and group 2.

  (It was at that point that an editor in group 2, Cerejota, decided to shut group 1 down by force. He made various controversial edits that led me to voice mild criticism of him on my talk page, which ultimately led to this WQA thread. I mention this WQA, and also this RFC on tendentious editing on WT:V, because both are relevant to ongoing conduct on this talk page: without making any allegations, I want to suggest to involved editors that it might be unwise to take on the role of self-appointed talk page manager.)

  As you can see, this dichotomy remains very much a live issue. Where there's no consensus, should those who urge change (a) persist until consensus is reached or (b) shut up and go away? I'm not aware of any guidance from neutral parties on that question at all, but if anyone does have any, they'd be very welcome to post it.—S Marshall T/C 12:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

No available replacement text for VNT

Doc, it's easy to make a mess of what I'm saying by quoting me out of context, because what you'll find if you go back over the last year and a half is that my views have evolved considerably. In most cases they've hardened. It's true that my willingness to compromise has been severely eroded. I've come to realise that it is extremely rare for an editor to change his or her mind about this issue, and I've come think that, as any logician or mathematician will tell you any compromise between the right answer and the wrong answer is a different kind of wrong answer.

As far as I'm concerned, it's uncontroversial that while there's no actual consensus, at the second-largest RFC Misplaced Pages's ever had (after the SOPA one), the clear majority of editors wanted VNT amended. It follows that the consensus-seeking approach is to find a mutually acceptable way to amend it. I find that editors who're seeking a mutually acceptable way to preserve it in the lede are being obstructive and difficult and I strongly wish that editors would be prepared to use the majority view as their starting point.

I'm basically waiting until enough time has elapsed since the last RFC to begin a new, large-scale one in which we ask editors what they want. I would like the next RFC to be the last one, which can be achieved by agreeing that the majority view should be binding.—S Marshall T/C 13:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

• I have a few simple questions for S Marshall that I hope he will address.

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

Question 1. As I've said before, I don't believe that VNT has ever really enjoyed consensus support at any of the major RFCs we've had. I do accept that in the Byzantine world of Wikipedian process guidelines, the current version is the stable version and should remain until consensus is achieved. But my position is that VNT is in place, and remains in place, because of the first-mover advantage rather than because editors want it.

Question 2. My offer was a serious offer at compromise because I was engaging, at that time, with editors who seemed genuinely prepared to seek a compromise that works for all sides. My support for Blueboar's compromise, which retained VNT but not in the lede, was on exactly the same basis. I've hardened since then. Conduct during the RFC by the anti-compromise faction proved that extreme intransigence and unwillingness to compromise is what works on WT:V. The many allegations and accusations I've faced here haven't exactly softened my attitude either, and neither has the evidence of editors getting together off-page to whine about me. I wish you lot would start this RFC/U on me if you seriously think I'm such a disruptive influence.

Question 3. If VNT did enjoy a genuine consensus supporting it, then that would have come out in the RFCs. That has not happened, so VNT does not enjoy consensus support. QED. And it doesn't deserve to enjoy consensus support either, because it's a bad and misleading formulation. I've always agreed with what Jimbo Wales said in this diff: "In all situations, the phase 'verifiability, not truth' is not as good as proposed alternatives."—S Marshall T/C 18:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Analysis of use of "threshold"

Relevant definitions from dictionaries

dictionary.com

1. any place or point of entering or beginning: the threshold of a new career.
2. the point at which a stimulus is of sufficient intensity to begin to produce an effect: the threshold of consciousness; a low threshold of pain.

Websters

1. the place or point of entering or beginning : outset <on the threshold of a new age>
2. the point at which a physiological or psychological effect begins to be produced
3. a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not

And, as a sidebar, I deal in technical fields where the term is used extensively, and in those definition #3 applies.

Presumed widely-accepted intent of "threshold"

1. Obviously, to state that meeting wp:verifiability is a requirement for inclusion
2. To put forth the idea that step #1 when putting in material is meeting the verifiability requirement
3. Since all situations have only one threshold, using the term gives extra emphasis /importance/prominence to that particular requirement. The thought is that it needs extra emphasis because of its importance and that people often try to not follow it.

Comments / analysis

First, I like the sound of "threshold" in the policy. I'm used to it, and none of the other ideas that I've heard sounds as good to me. But under the common meanings of the term, I think that it is ambiguous at best, and incorrect at worst, and that these issues have impacts.

Using the two "#1" definitions are where it is "ambiguous at best". The doorway metaphor would sort of mean an "initial entry point" leaving open the possibility that there may still be other requirements/tests, but it certainly doesn't say or mean the latter.

Using #3 under Websters, (which can be really applied, no metaphor needed) and the two #2's as metaphors, the use of "threshold" is flat out in error. They all mean that the result is controlled by one factor, with the factor being analog or continuously variable (e.g. having a magnitude rather than just two states). With the former, this is an outright incorrect statement that verifiability is the ONLY requirement for inclusion. And in the case of the latter, it is not analogous; meeting verifiabiliity is treated as a question with a "YES/NO" answer, not a matter of degree.

Conclusion: Even though it sounds good, we should change it to something that solves the ambiguity problem and other problems while still fulfilling the described intentions.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Since all situations have only one threshold..." - who says situations must have only one threshold? I think it is accurate to say that the threshold called "Verifiability" is the most important threshold (as the others depend on it), but there are other thresholds.

I don't know if you have ever seen the opening credit sequence to the TV show "Get Smart"... but it is a good analogy. In the sequence, we see Maxwell Smart enter a building and walk down a long corridor. He comes to a large door, which slides open and allows him to continue down the corridor... where there is another large door which also slides open, allowing him to continue. He comes to a third door, and a fourth, etc. until he finally arrives at an elevator (disguised as a phone booth) that will take him into the secret headquarters of CONTROL. Each of these doors (and the phone booth) acts as a threshold, leading (eventually) into the secret headquarters.

Now, imagine that these doors are marked "Verifiability", "No original research", "Neutral point of view", etc. and you can see the analogy. The first door an editor comes to is the one marked "Verifiability". That door must slide open before he can continue down the corridor that leads to the secret headquarters of INCLUSION. It is the threshold. However, he is still in the corridor and not yet in the secret headquarters. He must continue to walk down the corridor and have the doors marked "No original research", "Neutral point of view", "Relevance" etc. etc. slide open. These too are thresholds... but he doesn't come to them until after he has passed through the door marked "Verifiability". Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• If there are several thresholds, then verifiability is not the threshold. Verifiability is a threshold.—S Marshall T/C 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

To Blueboar Yes, I remember it well. And I understand what you are saying. But wouldn't you say that an metaphor/analogy that relies on an unusual "Get Smart" series of doors scenario to make it work is not a good analogy? And then there are still common meanings which indicate something that is in error. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't a case of "error"... We can discuss whether the analogy is the clearest way to express what we mean, and suggest ways to express what we mean that we think might be better ... but the analogy isn't "wrong". Blueboar (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I failed to fully explain. I meant that if one uses the two #2 definitions and the #3 definition of threshold, then what the "threshold" sentence says in is error. For example, per "a level, point, or value above which something......will take place and below which it is not or will not." Basically saying that meeting wp:ver is the sole determining factor for both exclusion and inclusion, which is incorrect. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Threshold" means that verifiability is the minimum requirement for inclusion of material.
2. 'The threshold for 'inclusion' in Misplaced Pages' is...
3. 'The threshold for insertion in Misplaced Pages' is...
4. The core statement is "verifiability is a requirement for inclusion" and incision and insertion and several prescriptive statements implicitly.
5. All information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable, because other policies and guidelines don't works

   wp:TPG NewbyG ( talk) 20:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding Shortcut

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

WP:PROVEIT should be included as a shortcut to this page's section ==Burden of evidence==Curb Chain (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Err, it's already there.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the shortcut already points to the section... but I think Curb is requesting that it actually be added to the little list of shortcuts that in the little box that accompanies the section. Blueboar (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Those shortcut boxes shouldn't have a comprehensive list of shortcuts. I suggest replacing WP:UNSOURCED with WP:PROVEIT as the latter has many more uses. — Bility (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just did a quick check on the usage for all three:

Shortcut	Links (approximate)	Views (last 30 days)
WP:BURDEN	4000	1526
WP:UNSOURCED	200	1000
WP:PROVEIT	2000	208

I can't see a clear case for switching the links so I'll remove {{editprotected}} for now. If you come to an agreement about this then by all means add it back. Tra (Talk) 06:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Reboot, 16 February 2012

Since Misplaced Pages is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", nothing in it can be trusted. It is left as an exercise to the reader to verify assertions they may doubt. Editors should so far as possible assist them in this endeavour by providing cited sources.

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

Rebooting 16+ February 2012

Since Misplaced Pages is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", nothing in it can be trusted and everything in it can be trusted. It is left as an exercise to the reader to verify assertions they may doubt. Editors should so far as possible assist them in this endeavour by providing cited sources ....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How 'bout this

Resolving both of the above by clarifying rather than eliminating: Add the following to the first paragraph:

"Not truth" in this policy means that nothing, (such as truth of the material) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement; "threshold" means that verifiability is an important requirement but not the only requirement for inclusion of material.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

North could you add your text to the opening paragraph I've copied below so we can see it in context:(olive (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC))

"Threshold" means that verifiability is the minimum requirement, but not the only requirement for inclusion of material. B——C_ritical 05:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, requirement for material. *Not* (not) tth requirement for inclusion. Nor for requirement for inclusion of material. At that point, it is the ability of editors to discern whether potential material is going to be verifiable material. It is not about includability or inclusingness or includitionally or incluedingly. It is, fore better or worse, Verifiability. Inclusion is wiki-jargon for *I want to edit this page* and *Deletion* the same is wiki-jargon for *you messed up my page* NewbyG ( talk) 05:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability on Misplaced Pages is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. "Not truth" in this policy means that nothing, (such as truth of the material) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement; "threshold" means that verifiability is an important requirement but not the only requirement for inclusion of material.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I just noticed that you actually meant to put it in there. Here goes. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I like North's suggestion very well. I strongly support it. I've noticed something weird about the first sentence of the lead's current opening, though. I promise I'm not meaning to sound nitpicky, but... with the present wording, the sentence describes verifiability as the ability to cite reliable sources. Should we be more assertive here? The second sentence asserts that verifiability is essentially a requirement. The first sentence kind of makes it sound like an option or an editor's prerogative. My thinking is that verifiability is really the ability of readers to verify that WP material cites reliable sources, and a requirement that editors cite such sources accordingly. Perhaps instead of the ability to cite, maybe the practice of citing, the requirement to cite or something? If nobody else sees the first sentence in this light, then that's fine, I can ignore it. I'm not arbitrarily opposed to it, but I figured it was worth mentioning as food for thought. John Shandy` • talk 20:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

By "ability" I'm certain it means that it is an attribute of the material, specifically that it is sourcABLE. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Anything that starts out "Verifiability on Misplaced Pages is the ..." still comes off as a wierd WP-space dictionary definition rather than policy or even guidance. Who cares what it is defined as? We care that editors do something (i.e. that they cite reliable sources). We can couch this either in the prescriptive: "Cite reliable sources so that statements are verifiable", or in the descriptive: "There is no substitute for the citation of reliable sources in making statements verifiable", but getting wrapped up in definition of terms right off the top is a dead loss. It trashes any hope for retaining a reader's attention. Make the main point first before worrying them with details like VNT.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My focus is just on dealing with the contentious areas. I was figuring that non-heated general improvement topics could be handled after that. But, commenting on your thoughts, the core statement is "verifiability is a requirement for inclusion" and several prescriptive statements implicitly but obviously follow from that such as "don't put in unverifiable material" and "unverifiable material may be removed". Also that there is no prohibition from putting in uncited verifiable material. My personal opinion is that that is a good approach for the beginning rather than to try to say some or all of the prescriptive things that flow from it. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability on Misplaced Pages is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee insertability . The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source.....

The problem is that people look at "Verifiability, not truth" and decide that it means that information from a source that is verfiable should be included even if we know it's false.

The only way to solve this problem is to phrase the rule in a way which clearly says not to do that.

There have been tons of proposals that try to avoid conflict by watering down the "this is wrong, don't do it" part. But watering it down in this way is watering down the very reason that we need the change in the first place. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Briefly, here are the three points in the spectrum.

1. Wp:ver being interpretable to say "the truth never matters, and may not enter into discussions"
2. WP:ver remain silent on the "truth" issue. except to say that nothing overrides meeting the verifiability requirement
3. An objective of wikipedia is accuracy (or the straw-man word for accuracy which is "truth")

You are #3, in spirit I am #3, but I think that the policy should be #2, and that is what my proposal does. Further. it is a compromise which explains rather than removes the contested wording. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Howzat? fore grammar

Compare this for grammar

"Verifiability on Misplaced Pages means that the information in an article must be supported by reliable sources."

• Do we really wish to say that it is the editors who are verifiable or that the material is verifiable? NewbyG ( talk) 05:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Random section break

• Well, under #Blue_flag_2 above, I gave the example of an anonymous "listed Scientologists" diversion in the Guardian's TV programme section. The BLPN discussion was at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive89#List_of_Scientologists_--_Gloria_Gaynor. The upshot of that discussion was that a majority of editors, incl. Jimbo Wales, came to the conclusion that the information in the Guardian list was untrue. As a result, Gloria Gaynor was removed from List of Scientologists, along with other people whose inclusion was only supported by that anonymous Guardian piece (which seemed to some like it had been copied from Misplaced Pages). Now, according to the present policy wording, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true", the editors who insisted on WP:V in that discussion should have carried the day, the fact that Jimbo and other editors thought the information was untrue should not have carried any weight, and Gloria Gaynor should still be listed as a Scientologist in List of Scientologists. Is anyone actually suggesting that should have been the outcome of that discussion? And if not, how can we adjust the wording so that we can still get a sensible outcome in cases like that, without apparently breaking policy?

• And how can we do it while not opening the floodgates to OR and deletions of well-sourced material? --JN466 16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The defining issue in this policy is Threshold of Inclusion, or inserting verifiable material. And we must define Vnt. Beyond that,

Well, the thing is that the wording "not whether editors think it is true" is misused, has been misused, and will be misused in cases like the one described here. "It's verifiable, and we are not concerned with truth." From mid-January until recently, we had the wording "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true". It's a wording that clearly specifies the minimum requirement for inclusion, but cannot be misused in this way. This wording leaves the question what to do with sourced material that may be untrue to other policies and guidelines, as the lead of this policy should.

You are right that it is not a one-step process. But we must never write a sentence – let alone one as prominent as this one, in the lead of a core policy – that implies that it is. --JN466 21:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—, content can be considered for inclusion in Misplaced Pages only if it is published in a reliable source, that is, is verified, but that verification does not guarantee inclusion of any content in the encyclopedia. Once content is verified it must be scrutinized per the other Misplaced Pages policies, to make sure that content is compliant with all policies. At no time does what an editor think is true or accurate become a criteria for the inclusion of content into Misplaced Pages.

• If the defining issue was really "Threshold of Inclusion" then we should rename this policy "Threshold of Inclusion". But actually the defining issue of this policy is the need to attribute quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged by means of an inline citation.—S Marshall ]/C 21:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Another example, off the top of my head, is that there a number of sources stating that Jimbo Wales is Jewish. A hardline VnTer would argue that we are not concerned with truth, and that it is verifiable that sources have stated Jimbo is Jewish. However, that view does not have broad community support. We know those sources are plain mistaken, and unless the mistaken attribution of Jewishness becomes an issue in its own right in reliable sources, this piece of mistaken information has no place being in Jimbo's biography, verifiable or not. And the fact that we think it is untrue undoubtedly has something to do with it. So, how can we word it? --JN466 02:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  That's rather a thin argument. The "hardline VNT" position would be more along the lines that conflicting statements of fact in published sources demonstrate that some of those sources must not be reliable even if the publication of the statements can be verified. The difficulty then focusses on how to establish which side is the unreliable source. When one side is clearly better regarded (The Times vs News of the World, e.g.) the answer is simple. If they appear equally credible and the positions are similar in current prevalence we either seek better quality evidence (in this case possibly by inviting Jimbo to furnish clarification in an RS publication) or we discuss the dispute itself. We simply do not override the published source with our own unpublished knowledge. This whole thing has echoes of the "birther" controversy in the US. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  It seems we are in agreement, except where you say "We simply do not override the published source with our own unpublished knowledge." Editors may look at sources, and come to the conclusion that one side is simply mistaken, or unreliable for this particular statement. For example, if you ask Jimbo and he tells you he is not Jewish, and you find that other sources don't generally claim he is either, then you "think it is not true". And that is precisely what current policy says does not matter. Editors, every day at WP:RSN, decide, collectively, that a certain source may or may not be reliable for a particular statement. What editors think matters, and it determines – not in an abstract sense, but in a real, everyday practical sense – what enters this encyclopedia. --JN466 15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  P.S.: And please remember: I am not advocating in the least that we say "Editors can delete material they consider untrue". Instead, I want us to stop saying that "whether editors think it is true" should have no bearing whatsoever on what may be added here, because as currently written it implies that editors must not question or assess the reliability of a source – which is patently false, because it's something editors in good standing do here every day, and other policies in fact tell them to do it. --JN466 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  @Jayen: That was a quick draft, maybe I can redo it. The key in that last sentence is "for the inclusion content". While editors can discuss accuracy , that discussion does not permit inclusion. My belief is that there is a point where editor consensus on such issues can trump clearly inaccurate content. I could show you a whole list of articles where content in the article adds up to inaccuracy and there is no way to argue that with editors who have in multiple ways declared their POVs. Verifiability is a threshold policy and deals with what is needed to underpin the other policies. From that view Verifiability should not deal with accuracy, but the other policies, and editor agreement and consensus should. There's a point where IAR comes strongly into play, where editor common sense has to trump policy, and Misplaced Pages makes allowances for that. Once verifiability is established, all the policies all of the discussion and IAR can be "invoked", but not before. The real problem is that editors use Verifiability to maintain strangleholds on POV edits and slanted articles . It takes a very Misplaced Pages-mature group of editors to reach consensus on issues which trump the letter of a policy. Verifiability is not the place to deal with that problem except possibly to point to the problem itself. I'll think about how to reword to include these ideas, then see what others think. My opinion of course.(olive (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC))

  Olive, that is very close to the argument I have been making all along. My argument has been this: "verifiability, not truth" makes sense when we are talking about unsourced content. If there is no source whatsoever to say that Stephen Hawking thinks physicist X is wrong, because he hasn't written about this yet and only told me his opinion when I met him in a pub, I cannot add this to the article. It is true, but not verifiable.

  However, "verifiability, not truth" is often applied, incorrectly, to sourced material. Editors will say, "it's verifiable, and whether you think it's true or not does not matter, because the lead of WP:V states, 'The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.'"

  So because this wording can be (properly) applied to unsourced material, as well as (improperly) to sourced material, WP:V in its present form does actually make a comment about accuracy – and the comment is, or can be interpreted as: "Accuracy does not matter. It is enough for something to be verifiable."

  So I agree with you that other policies should be applied, and are available, to decide what to do with sources that may be in error, or may be unreliable for a particular statement – a matter that is particularly important when writing biographies of living persons, which have to be written conservatively. Are you with me up to this point? The problem I am concerned about is that "Verifiability, not truth" combined with "not whether editors think it is true" does not foster conservative writing. It fosters reckless writing, especially in those problem scenarios that you allude to. --JN466 01:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Perhaps Olive meant "can be misinterpreted"? We don't really need to worry about this. If an editor "knows" the truth is at variance from what is presently verifiable, it simply provides motivation to dig harder. Only if he still can't turn up a source is it likely to cause him to question his "knowledge". In the worst case, he propagates erroneous information which is already published, but at least he isn't originating the error. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly, that's what happens, and the worst thing that can happen is an untruth in the literature gets spread around, and if it's important then someone who's in a position to do so is more likely to correct it. B——C_ritical 05:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  You say, "the worst thing that can happen is that we spread an untruth", as though this weren't a particularly bad thing for an encyclopedia rated no. 1 in Google to do. As far as I am concerned, mutliplying erroneous or malicious information is about the worst thing an encyclopedia can do. It doesn't reflect editorial practice either, especially in the context of BLPs. Jimbo's article does not say he's Jewish, because, well, he isn't, even though it could be sourced. It's not a minority opinion, it's just wrong. We do not claim that Gloria Gaynor is a Scientologist, sourced to an anonymous piece of filler in the Guardian, because we've looked at the source and don't believe it was the product of any reliable research. Our article on tinnitus does not tell sufferers that they can heal themselves by rubbing the sides of their spine around the kidney region for a minute in the late afternoon, using their thumbs, even though a column in The Observer once verifiably said so (see User:Tom_Morris/The_Reliability_Delusion). We do not add everything that is verifiable to this encyclopedia, independently of whether it is true or not, and there is no need for this policy to state or imply the opposite. --JN466 15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Well, of course we wouldn't say "Gloria Gaynor is a Scientologist". We might, if it was relevant to a further narrative (perhaps about a defamation suit), safely say that on (date) "The Guardian published an unsigned filler piece saying that Gaynor was a Scientologist, without citing their sources." Because we are cautious about treating primary sources as reliable, this is dealt with in wp:RS and wp:PSTS. Likewise tinitus should follow wp:MEDRS which would rapidly show that Observer clipping the way to the trashbasket. Why would V need to address it too? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm totally in agreement with you – WP:V shouldn't address this one way or another. WP:V is about preventing original research. It's about not having unsourced stuff in the article, based on an editor's assertion that it is true. WP:V shouldn't be commenting on a case like Gaynor's or Jimbo's at all, where we have a nominally reliable source making a mistake. But the present wording does comment, by saying "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." We can mitigate it by saying "not whether editors think unsourced material is true", to make clear what we are talking about. In fact, the policy did say that for three weeks. But then someone reverted that stupid old wording back in that literally says that once something is printed in a reliable source, whether you or any editor thinks it's true does not matter one jot. At the same time, editors are told (see WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:REDFLAG) to assess and scrutinise the "reliability of sources". We have an entire noticeboard devoted to that. If editors scrutinise the reliability of a source, a really major part of that is deciding whether or not they think what a source says is likely to be true. But then we also say what they think doesn't matter. So we are essentially saying, Editors have to assess the reliability of sources, but their assessment does not affect inclusion of the material in Misplaced Pages.

  That's just nonsense. It's a double bind. And before you tell me that we are not saying that, please re-read the current wording: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. --JN466 16:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Well, the present wording is simply bad grammar, so different readers will parse its structure differently. That fact obscures any meaning it might otherwise have. Worse, it uses the ambiguous terms "threshold" and "material" in ways that are certain to be misunderstood. What on earth is that emdash supposed to convey, anyhow? Is it discussing the verifiability of the material, the verifiability of its publication, or the verifiability of the source's reliability? Is the "verifiability" of an assertion a theoretical possibility, yet to be tested, or is it to be demonstrated by assessing the reliability of the cited sources prior to inclusion? As sentences (and I must use the term loosely) go, this one is a genuine stinker. Hence we are here on the talkpage trying to fix it.LeadSongDog come howl! 18:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Compromise Lead?

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

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

  Verifiability on Misplaced Pages is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

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

  Verifiability on Misplaced Pages is the ability to cite reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Misplaced Pages must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. The phrase 'not truth' does not excuse introducing inaccuracies into the encyclopaedia.

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

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

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

  ...and the introduction of factual inaccuracies is clearly stated not to be allowed by the "not truth" part.

  This smacks of backdoor OR and a license to do so. It's horrendous. That's what I think. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  Agree: Whether editors believe something is true or false is irrelevant to inclusion in Misplaced Pages. B——C_ritical 06:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

  Given the edits above

  • I suspect that given the edits above we probably need to go back yet another step and start a clean sheet from first principles. Do we want the policy to say we should include everything sourced, regardless of its truth or falsehood? Or do we want the policy to say we can remove unsourced material that's known to be false? If so, who is the person who determines its truth or falsehood? (I hope this isn't going to turn into an exercise in epistemology.)

    My position is well summed up in two of Jimbo's bons mots: (1) "We only want true things in our encyclopaedia, and we want to verify them"; and (2) "We are not transcription monkeys". In other words, I think that in many cases editors can tell the difference between truth and falsehood, and I also think that where we can, we should. I think can decide which is which on the basis of good faith talk page discussion. And I think we have a basic duty to our readers not to lie to them if we can avoid it.

    I also think that it should be possible to remove sourced but untrue content. In the case of a BLP this would include sourced but suspected untrue content (such as criminal allegations that have yet to be decided by a court, for example) if editors come to a good faith consensus that the said material should be removed.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

  Marahall,

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

  Very much agree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The only time accuracy/truth may be invoked without original research, is that it may prompt editors to do extra research. This very often happens, and it's very valuable. Using our own judgement rather than relying on the sources, however, is an absolute, completely inviolable bright line which, if crossed, will subvert the founding purpose of Misplaced Pages, which is to be an encyclopedia which is reliable relative to reliable sources, not the beliefs of its crowdsource. B——C_ritical 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

  If all material has crossed the WP:V threshold for inclusion, no amount of removal from that set, by any rationale, will be anything but verifiable.  See also WP:Inaccuracy—in cases like the correct spelling of Prior's or Pattison's last name, you are claiming that people reliably have two and three last names just because no reliable source refutes any of the spellings.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, nice essay "Readers may want to be aware of apparent inaccuracies or patterns of contradictions as part of their reading. Apparent inaccuracies of a lesser note can be relegated to a footnote. Ultimately, with allowing for due weight considerations in how the material is presented, and notwithstanding copyright violations, the only reason to exclude verifiable material from the encyclopedia is because it is insignificant." I think it says it all, and we should follow that advice. B——C_ritical 07:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

  • Just to respond to Becritical, I think that accuracy and truth is often invoked without original research. I think that editors generally try to evaluate the sources they use, so as to form a view about which source is the most reliable (and if they aren't evaluating their sources, then they should be). I also think that the process of evaluating sources does require the exercise of editorial judgment. It's not "original research" to evaluate sources, it's merely good editorial practice. And in some cases, the outcome of evaluating a source might be to decide not to use it, i.e. not to republish its claims.

    Now, when we evaluate a source to decide how reliable it is, we're looking for evidence of fact-checking, peer review, the academic qualifications of the author, whether the source agrees with the mainstream consensus, whether it's cited by other reliable sources, and all the other things that make a source more reliable. All of these things also make the source more likely to be true. Don't they? Because by looking for reliable sources, what we're trying to achieve is an article that's balanced, that's in accordance with the mainstream academic consensus, that's accurate, and that's generally likely not to mislead editors. In short, an article that's true. There's no point looking for reliable sources unless we're aiming for accuracy, and indeed the whole concept of a "reliable" source makes very little sense unless you make the link between reliability and truth.

    In other words, I think WP:V is aiming at truth through verifiability. I don't think it's aiming at verifiability at the expense of truth.

    As an aside, I also don't agree with you when you describe "the founding purpose of Misplaced Pages" because the de facto founder of Misplaced Pages, the guy who can tell you what its founding purpose really was back in those days, has been quite clear that he doesn't like VNT and he wants that wording to be changed.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

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

  Thus:

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

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

  Delete sourced untruth? An example

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

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

  Non-expert answer. It is verifiable that Vermaseren supports that claim. It is verifiable, you say, that Beck and Clauss refute that position, referring to Vermaseren. These are all reliable sources, yes?

  Then, the editors at the article page will have to decide of how much of that verifiable material needs be summarised, or reported in the article, bearing in mind how many bytes are already allocated to matters of more import to the Mithraic mystery tradition. You see, it wouldn't go in the lead section. And wp:Undue Weight comes into play. Haffta sort it out at the talk page, I guess. Thanks, anyone else got an idea, better? NewbyG ( talk) 01:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

  Well, just thinking about, How about : In Vermeseren , it is stated that 25 December corresponds to M's birth date celebration.(1) In Kroutts Clauss,(2) and also Beck, 25 December is ascribed to a pagan celebration day, not associated with M- (3).reffs

  Then, the editors get to discuss where it fits on the page, or if it fits or gets on the page. That's my suggested modus operandi! Thank you, user, thanks anyone who can improve on that, (probably) NewbyG ( talk) 05:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

  Yeawh, thanks I don't quite understand here

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

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

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

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

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

  • When I said that the policy should allow editors to remove sourced but untrue content, I was referring to edits such as this one made to our article on evolution. This is exactly what I mean when I say the business of encyclopaedia writers is evaluating sources. Verifiable content was removed after an editor had evaluated the source being used.

    Kalidasa 777 and Becritical, please can I draw your attention to Talk:Evolution? I would be particularly grateful if you could read Talk:Evolution/FAQ which, I think, explains exactly why editors do need to be able to remove sourced but untrue, or sourced but suspect, content from articles.—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the issue is how editors decide to exclude a claim. Exclusion based on quantity and quality of sources is OK; exclusion based on editors' analysis, synthesis, or experiments are not. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Exactly.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Very much exactly. Now, to me, this thought seems to contradict "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability"; it suggests that verifiability is one of several thresholds for inclusion.—S Marshall T/C 20:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

  I would need to dig around in order to find the discussions, but I have been on the loosing side of discussions where sourced assertions were deleted because they were determined by editorial consensus to be untrue. The argument for doing that, as I understand it, goes something like this

  • WP:DUE requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.
  • A source deemed generally reliable may be unreliable on some topics.
  • Individual assertions by a source deemed generally reliable for a topic may, individually, be unreliable.
  • An untrue statement is unreliable.
  • A source deemed generally reliable for a topic is unreliable for assertions determined to be untrue.
  • WP:DUE does not require that such assertions be given due weight, regardless of their prominence, because they come from sources not reliable for those particular assertions.

  Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

  It is not just newspapers but scholars too that can be dead wrong. I recall one case where a scholar, in a short-ish biography, said the subject was arrested and died in custody, when dozens of newspaper reports and other scholars described the subject's release from prison, his move to another country, and several years of prominent and newsworthy activity in the other country after he left prison. In such a case, the mistaken source deserves no weight at all – but these are judgments subject to editor consensus. That is why it is so important that we improve the "not whether editors think it is true" wording, because what editors think does matter provided it is based on proper research. --JN466 02:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Darwin, truth/untruth, fringe/mainstream

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

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

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

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

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

  Bottom line... Distinguishing "fringe" from "mainstream" is not always easy, but WP editors need to try. Distinguishing "true" from "untrue" is even less easy. Is it really the role of WP editors to try to do that? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • I totally agree with you that verifiability can't be the only criterion for inclusion. For a long time now, I've been trying to replace "The threshold for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is verifiability" with "A criterion for inclusion on Misplaced Pages is verifiability" in order to address this.

    I also agree with you that distinguishing "true" from "untrue" is not always easy. In some cases, it is easy; here's one that you can probably figure out even if you aren't a professor of epistemology. :-) This is, once again, a matter of how you weigh sources: the question is, in an article called "age of the earth", do we rely on (a) the mainstream scholarly consensus from geologists and astrophysicists, or (b) the Bible as interpreted by young earth creationism?

    Nevertheless, I've observed that the idea that mere Wikipedians could tell the difference between truth and falsehood does cause some editors to experience strong concern. My ideal solution would be to remove all reference to "truth" from this policy. (Basically, I think this policy should explain what verifiability means, and it shouldn't explain what verifiability doesn't mean.)

    So if you add up all the changes I think need to be made to that sentence and mash them together into one edit, what you get is: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" → "A criterion for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source."

    I'm afraid this proposal is rather controversial, though.—S Marshall T/C 00:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • • I think a distinction has to be made between "inclusion in Misplaced Pages" and inclusion in a particular WP article. Well-sourced material about cats does not belong in an article about camels. WP should and does include sourced information about Young Earth creationism. That information quite rightly does not go on the page presenting mainstream scientific findings about Earth's geological history...

      Can WP editors tell the difference between true and untrue? Well, certainly individual editors can make up their individual minds about what they regard is true. The question is whether editors can come to a consensus about what is true? That would be difficult, when you consider that the WP editor is anyone who clicks on the edit button on the top of a page. As such, editors inevitably include a complete spectrum of philosophical, religious and political positions... Including, for instance, the person who tried to fix up Age of the Earth, to bring it into line with young-earth creationism. Assuming good faith, that particular editor holds it to be true that the Earth is 6 thousand years old, and therefore wished to remove the supposedly untrue statement that it is 4.54 billion years old.

      What do we say to someone like that? Do we say: "Your beliefs are quite wrong. If you want to edit Misplaced Pages, you will have to recant those wrong views, and believe the same stuff the rest of us do." Or do we say: "Your beliefs are your own business. But the statement that Earth is 4.45 billion years ago is verifiable as the mainstream scientific position. For that reason, even if you are convinced it is quite untrue, you will be wasting your own time if you try to take it out." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

      • Thank you, Kalidasa 777. That's an admirably clear, concise and focused post given the complexity of what you're saying, and I want to say that I'm finding you a very pleasant interlocutor.

        You make three points which I'll address in turn.

        Firstly, you draw a distinction between inclusion in WP, and inclusion in a particular WP article. I agree, and I don't think it's possible to come up with a pithy one-paragraph summary of the criteria for inclusion. In fact, an accurate and balanced account of WP's criteria for inclusion would make quite a lengthy essay. I also think that WP:V is not about the criteria for inclusion. What WP:V is about is te need to attribute anything challenged or likely to be challenged. I think that for the purposes of this policy all we need to say is that verifiability is one of the several criteria for inclusion.

        Secondly, you ask whether WP editors can tell the difference between true and untrue. I don't think that's a question with a binary yes/no answer. In some cases we can certainly tell the difference. In other cases there's a genuine discussion to be had, and in still others, editors will never be able to agree. How to handle the difference between truth and untruth is complex, involving as it does both questions of article content and questions of editor conduct. I don't think WP:V is about truth or untruth, though. I think WP:V is about the need to attribute anything challenged or likely to be challenged. I do not see any reason why we need to mention truth in WP:V at all. I can see a case for a separate essay on the subject and would be interested in helping to build one.

        Thirdly, you ask what we say to someone with unconventional beliefs, and you offer a choice of two answers. I wouldn't use either of them, to be quite honest. I don't think WP:V is about how to deal with editors with unconventional beliefs, though. What WP:V is about is the need to attribute sources for anything challenged or likely to be challenged. I don't see any reason why we need to talk about how to handle editors with unconventional beliefs in this policy at all.

        In short, I think WP:V should be about the principle of verifiability and it should not be about anything else. Over the years, WP:V has been hijacked: it's stopped being a nuanced and thoughtful discussion of why we attribute sources and it's turned into a disguised treatise on how to deal with truth-warriors. I think we need to refocus on the verifiability aspect and take dealing with truth-warriors to a separate essay.—S Marshall T/C 12:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

        • Thanks for the kind words about my last message! Your expression "truth-warrior" is certainly relevant to situations we've talked about (including the Mithraism page), and it probably does deserve an essay of its own. But does any reference to this in WP:V really amount to a hijack?

          As you've said "What WP:V is about is the need to attribute sources for anything challenged or likely to be challenged." An issue I see as closely related is: Whether (or to what extent) material is protected from challenges if it does indeed have a verifiable RS? And isn't a "truth-warrior" exactly the sort of person who does a lot of challenging, presumably in good faith, even against sourced verifiable statements? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Too busy?

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

  Big problem here

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

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

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

  Disruptive editing

  I have complained at ANI that NewbyG is being disruptive here and needs to be blocked. Feel free to briefly support or oppose there. Dicklyon (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  That incident is finalized. The complaining user was told to go away, and will not be posting to ANI again, nor will *I*. NewbyG ( talk) 23:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  OK, NBG, stay off the talk page until we can repair the damage you've done. I think it would take about 18 hours of lockdown to handle your bizarre subheadings and non-Wiki hidden text. It might be cleaner just to remove (or archive) everything that NBG has written and replies, and start over without the subcomments and hidden text. That might be a violation of WP:TPG, but something needs to be done so that discussion of the issue can occur. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  NewbyG has been blocked... so there is no point in continuing this thread. Suggest we just draw a big line across the page and start over. Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Wow, Arthur, you are correct: that's taking ineptness to a whole nother level. I propose that you block immediately next time you see that happening again, and I'll do the same--esp. those subheadings, that's incredibly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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

  Ok, done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you. Much better now. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Please summarize the last few days

  I have been away for a few days... and I am finding the recent threads hard to follow. It would be helpful if someone could summarize the key points. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. Discussions went on.
  2. Nobody agreed on anything.
  3. The page got blocked.
  4. NewbyG managed a self-block without being an admin.
  5. The page got unblocked.
  6. Nobody's agreed on anything.
  7. Discussions going on.

  Wifione 03:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Very astute of you. Discussions will go on. The policy will be completely rewritten. Stay tuned... Doc talk 03:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Lulz. B——C_ritical 04:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  The talk page is pretty totally trashed. I recommend that anyone with a topic open start over at the bottom, copying what's started if it's not too corrupted by NewbyG to make sense of. Dicklyon (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Dicklyon, please don't end a sentence with a preposition, or I might have to relegate your comments, uninformed as some are regarding the well-nigh infinite dispersal of means and the unequal distribution of what passes as intelligence in even lesser-known quarters than the current (rather chatty) community, to a different section where, environmental factors notwithstanding, they may better grow into the negative fruition they so richly deserve--if articles were nitrates, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place, of course. Peace. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Drmies, please don't write a one-sentence paragraph of preppysition. (: B——C_ritical 04:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Ending sentences with prepositions is something up with which we will not put.—S Marshall T/C 13:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  • As someone who only occasionally looks in here I've tried to understand what has been going on and couldn't make any sort of sense of it. I agree that the whole lot should be archived and discussion restarted. Polequant (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  After you posted, SarekOfVulcan went through and pretty effective removed the uninterpretable mess an repaired the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

  Should propositional content influence weight assignment?

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

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

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

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