Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 3 March 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.)

This page, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, is currently the subject of informal mediation by the Mediation Cabal. The mediation discussion is located here. Please read "suggestions for mediators" to get an understanding of what to expect from mediation. Please assume good faith, focus on content, not contributors, and observe Wikiquette. Links: Mediation Cabal case page • Mediation Cabal case talk page

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)

• Now we get a *cute* tag on this page, and another statement of battle-field intentions. Either surreal or poisonous, shall it take till next Saturday to decide? NewbyG ( talk) 21:07, 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)

I should record here that an editor protested. The protest was subsequently removed as disruptive, and there is some evidence that the protester may not have fully understood that Doc was asking me to invite these editors—in fact, my comment was described as a "threat"—but still, I feel obliged to take the protest seriously, which means I do not feel able to contact people to invite them here.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 23 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)

  Arbitrary page break

  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)

  Back to Jayen: I think my last sentence in the draft I laid out above is problematic . What it might say Is something like, "At no time does what an editor think is true or accurate establish the verifiability of the content"

  I still think the V not T text should open this policy but I would agree that, the explanation we have in place now is awkward and doesn't explain. I have supported the reversion of the policy text to the early stable version as a stable jumping off place, because adding bits and pieces is a kind of very ineffective band aid. The whole lead needs to be rewritten all at once if we don't want to have an unintelligible muddled mess.

  Suggestion. I'm in no way attached to this just brainstorming:

  The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth— potentially content can be considered for inclusion in Misplaced Pages if it is published in a reliable source, is verified, but that verification does not guarantee inclusion of that content in the encyclopedia. Once content is verified, Misplaced Pages has other policies and guidelines which affect content inclusion. At no time does what an editor think is true or accurate establish the verifiability of the content.

  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 17:28, 23 February 2012‎

  The tone of Littleolive suggestions is that material that complies with all policies is entitled to be included. That's wrong. Inclusion is based on the discretion and consensus of the editors about what constitutes good writing, and what is interesting for our readership. Nothing is entitled to be included. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Absolutely. I don't think there is one single threshold for inclusion at all, which is why I believe it is inappropriate for the policy to say "the threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is".—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  That's not what is being said, actually. This, and the word :"can" in "content can be considered for inclusion in Misplaced Pages" means the possibility or potential exists, not that content will be included. Maybe I can change that to be easier to understand.(olive (talk) 17:44, 23 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)

  That's a very interesting and pertinent example -- the person who one report says died in prison, while others say otherwise. I've put my comment on it in a new section below: "When reliable sources disagree"... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:14, 24 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)

          • Well, I didn't say that any reference to truth-warriors in WP:V amounts to a hijack. What I said was that the current version of WP:V amounts to a hijack. I think the role of the lede should be a balanced introduction the concept of verifiability that's aimed at good faith editors who may not have come across the policy before. I don't really approve of our present tactic of using the lede of WP:V as a great big club for beating truth-warriors over the head with.

            You mention the related issue of to what extent material is protected if it's reliably-sourced, and that's an interesting question. In my experience, as usual with Misplaced Pages there's no real consensus. Editors seem to lie along a spectrum from the ultra-inclusionist to the ultra-deletionist, with the more intelligent editors generally having a balanced, nuanced view that begins with the words "it depends on..." But also, I think that's already covered under the WP editing policy and specifically WP:BURDEN. I don't think we need to reinvent that particular wheel in WP:V, so all we need to provide is a pointer.—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Should propositional content influence weight assignment?

  Some thoughts and some questions

  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)

  Let's take a best-case example: an RS, A, which says "any source with factors X and Y is untrue," and then a reliable source, B, which has factors X and Y. An editor could do their own analysis and say "according to RS A, source B is untrue." But even in that best case, where an RS clearly states exactly how we should consider the content, it would be considered OR. Thus I don't know of any situation in which consideration of the source's content is allowable. In cases where we think a statement is untrue, we don't get to use our own judgment. Rather, we have extra motivation to research, and that extra motivation is the only influence our judgment should have on the outcome of our writing. B——C_ritical 03:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Right, this answers my question. If source A demonstrates, but does not explicitly say, that source B is wrong, you have three options:

  1. Include only source B, and dismiss the relevance of A as original research.
  2. Include both A and B, hoping you can get away with original synthesis.
  3. Remove source B, claiming that its reliability is disputed by the evidence from A.

  It seems that you would prefer the first option, but my impression is that current practice actually is to remove source B. Since there is no proper process described in policy, it really comes down to brute force application of WP:DUE and WikiLawyering, as described in Wtmitchell's post. Instead, wouldn't it be better if the legitimate ways of taking content into account, if there are any, were clarified.

  And North8000, I hope this was a bit more clear, but I'm not sure your optimistic assumptions about my thought processes are entirely justified. Regards, Vesal (talk) 17:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  If I understand your example... I would have to say: IT DEPENDS on where you are discussing the conflict between the two sources ... I would agree that we could not discuss the truth/untruth of source B in the text of an article (because doing so would be OR)... however... we certainly can discuss the issue on the article's talk page (NOR applies to article content, not talk page discussions).

  Also, you leave out something important ... assessing the relative reliability of source A and source B (ie deciding which source we trust more). This is best determined by finding out what lots of other sources say on the subject. This essentially is how we determine how much Weight to give each source. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Relative reliability can be important, but assume source A is far more reliable. The problem is that source A is only indirectly disputing source B. Including source A in the article would be original research, presumably because we cannot as non-experts be sure that A genuinely relates to B. So, how can we then be qualified to say that A serves as evidence against B on the talk page? This was perhaps the main problem that some editors, such as Maunus, had with the RFC proposal. There, you had stated that "assertions of untruth are more complicated" than assertions of truth. How can we justify this disparity? Why is the amount of original research you trust editors with much higher when taking out material than when including material? Vesal (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  Just the question!

  My above post is quite messily arguing and asking questions at the same time. Please just consider the critical sentence from Misplaced Pages:Inaccuracy: "Potential inaccuracy is a reason to reduce the due weight that is assigned to such material." Do you agree with this or not? Vesal (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

  As a general rule, that statement is correct. If you have really strong reasons to believe that a source is inaccurate (say, it declares that a building is 30 miles tall, and you strongly suspect that the author meant to say 30 stories tall), then you should either omit the extremely dubious material altogether, or you should not give it very much prominence (and perhaps qualify it with WP:INTEXT attribution). It would be rather embarrassing to have the article go on and on about the incredible building that's nearly sixty times taller than the previous record holder and somehow escaped everyone's notice until you found this source that says it's 30 miles tall, right?

  The challenge for editors is this: they're almost never going to see a case that is so obvious as the 'typo' I give as the example here. How to handle a source that seems dubious to editors is a complicated task, especially if you don't have a lot of other sources. If one source out of 10 disagrees in a way that seems like an obvious mistake, you can just quietly omit it, but if one source says X, and another says Y, and both X and Y seem possible, then it's not our job to decide which one of them is "inaccurate". In that case, we want to present the fact that the sources disagree to the readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  When reliable sources disagree

  I don't think anyone here is arguing that Misplaced Pages can include a "truth" which no reliable source supports. Or that Misplaced Pages can exclude a "truth" about which all reliable sources agree.

  Is this discussion about "truth" and "thresholds" really about what to do when reliable sources disagree? Perhaps there should be a section on the policy page with a heading like "When reliable sources disagree"...

  This section could note that, on many disagreements between reliable sources, it would be downright impossible (not to mention undesirable!) for Wikipedians to develop a consensus about who is right. Precisely because Misplaced Pages is "the encyclopedia everyone can edit", its editors will inevitably not agree as to the rights and wrongs of scientific, historical or philosophical controversies.

  Despite which, there may be cases where Wikipedians can and should find consensus about who is right. For instance – an example raised above by JN466 – what if just one usually reliable source says that a noted modern politician died in prison in a particular year, but a dozen other reliable sources report that the person was released from prison and went on to do notable things for years afterwards??

  In such a case – even though we Wikipedians have different views about just about everything – we might be able to agree that the "died in custody" report was an outright blunder, and give it no weight at all. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  The problematic cases involve a small element of original research; otherwise, it's simply a matter of WP:DUE, business as usual. For example, a newspaper reports something which can be shown to be wrong, and everyone can see that it's wrong, plain as day, because there is some publicly accessible data source that contradicts it. For example, The Register says an editor on Misplaced Pages did this or that, but the Misplaced Pages contribution logs clearly show this was not the case. Raw data sources, such as Misplaced Pages contribution logs, are not "reliable sources" for inclusion, but can such evidence influence exclusion of material? Vesal (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  I do not think the discussion is only about how to give the right WP:WEIGHT to differing sources, although it is sometimes an over-lapping problem. The policy page here is quite literally about the fact that there should be sources thqt can be named and checked. Indeed some of the concern about the "not truth" wording is that it distracts a bit from this simple point and can also lead to misunderstandings about other policies such as WP:NEUTRAL.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm thinking that this is not a problem with VNT as such but, rather, might be a problem with using the term threshold therein. Here I capsulized some discussions about exclusion in which I've been involved. I'm now thinking that the VNT statement in the lead might need a clarifying footnote to the effect that Verifiability is one necessary criterion (one necessary criterion vs. the threshold), and Truth (with a capital T) is not—followed with an explanation about how a verifiable reference to the utterance of a falsehood, if that utterance has due weight, does not fail the inclusion requirement of V, but still needs to pass the inclusion requirement of DUE. I'm not happy about intertwining policies in this way, but it looks to me as if there are more plusses than minuses to doing that here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  I don't really see a problem in the example. "Former minister X was reported in 1990 to have died in custody. Reported later actions by X suggest that the 1990 reports were inaccurate." If we plainly state the things that cause us to doubt the reliablity of the earlier report, readers will figure it out even if we don't have a Samuel Clemens quote saying "Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated." LeadSongDog come howl! 14:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sure... we could mention the verifiable fact that someone reported that the minister had died in 1990, and then counter it by mentioning the equally verifiable fact that there were subsequent reports indicating his survival... However, the question is: must we mention these facts? The answer to that question is clearly "No". We are allowed to use editorial discretion and consensus to decide which verifiable facts are worth mentioning in an article, and which are not. The next question is: should we mention these particular verifiable facts in this specific article? Answering that question has nothing to do with WP:V. It is a matter of editorial judgment and applying WP:DUE. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  It may be helpful to introduce a third term to our discussions... in addition to "inclusion" and "exclusion", we also have "omission". When we decide that some verifiable fact should not be mentioned, we are not necessarily "excluding" it... we are are merely "omitting" it. There is a difference. Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  We should not be creating false controversies out of RS errors. If one source makes a patent mistake, and another does not, we take the latter and ignore the former, or at best note on the talk page that the one source is in error. Mangoe (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Of course. But then there are situations where editors disagree as to whether a source has made a patent mistake or not. Sometimes (not often, but occasionally) the one dissenting source is actually correct, and multiple sources are simply repeating an error. The point is... this a WEIGHT issue and not really a verifiability issue. It is verifiable that the various sources say what they say. When choosing between them, the debate should be focused on which sources which sources should be given more Weight. Blueboar (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  The observation above by User:Blueboar that There is a difference (between) excluding and merely omitting is insightful. There are GRAMMAR problems in the lead section. As to grammar, the words "threshold" and most especially "Truth" are so off-putting, that many editors have come here to suggest we re-write. Did I mention that it is in the first instance purely a matter of inferior Grammar? NewbyG ( talk) 21:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, you mentioned it, but you were not convincing. In particular, the phrases in question are as grammatically correct as the famous nonsense sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously". Perhaps you mean that there is a non-grammar problem with the writing, e.g., that it is semantically suboptimal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  Semantically suboptimal- wish I had said that. I think the wording could be clearer and simpler by simply not mentioning *Truth* at all. Please keep *Truth* out of this policy page, it is about Verifiability. Truth is for the philosophers to mis-understand, not volunteers here to bumble, stumble and crumble over. NewbyG ( talk) 07:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  The traditional take-home message here has long been "verifiability, not truth", exactly to keep the focus on verifiability, and to prevent bumbling and stumbling arguments about truth. Dicklyon (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Dicklyon, I agree with Newbyguesses here. The way to keep the focus on verifiability is to focus on verifiability, which is the need to provide inline citations for all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged. "Truth" and "not truth" both have absolutely nothing to do with verifiability: they are distracting irrelevancies that need to be excised. If you desperately feel the need to retain "not truth" somewhere in a policy, then I would suggest the general editing policy would be a better place than WP:V.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Discussion tag

  Why is the tag still in? I thought there was sufficient consensus to take it out. B——C_ritical 21:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  • There seems to be some incentive to leave it alone for now, :O] (olive (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC))

  Wasn't there consensus to remove it? Why then would an administrator threaten to block those who removed it as well as those editing against consensus? B——C_ritical 22:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Nope, there wasn't consensus to remove it.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  I find it in extremely poor taste that you and Jehochman "assumed" that the IP editor just had to be one of the seven others that have tried to remove the tag, supposedly logged out to avoid detection. I doubt that any of those editors would be that dumb, but that's assuming good faith. I mean, freaking Prague?! And asking for a CU for a fishing expedition? Ugh. Doc talk 23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Doc, I've asked you to stop the attacks on me here. This does include being snide, k? I mean, it's no problem if you do it somewhere appropriate, such as at a RFC/U on me, or on Dreadstar's talk page where your little gang usually goes, but the constant attacks on WT:V are inappropriate and disruptive. "Stopping the attacks" also includes seriously distorting what happened in order to make me and those who agree with me look bad. Elen offered to go CU-fishing. I agreed that since Elen, Jehochman and I could all hear the loud quacking, in the circumstances it would be appropriate, and she went ahead. On this occasion, we didn't find a duck.—S Marshall T/C 00:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  There's no "attacks". This is not Elen offering first to run CU - she responded to your request with her own concerns about the IP being a random user. I'm not distorting anything, and I do not consider myself to be part of any "little gang". Doc talk 00:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  This is where Elen offered (or to use plain English, threatened) to run the CU fishing expedition that you just attempted to blame me for.—S Marshall T/C 10:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  I stand corrected, and I apologize - I missed that last part of her post. So, the three of you should all be equally trouted for automatically assuming that any of the involved good faith editors would be idiotic enough to log out in order to revert this tag and not expect to get "suspected". Triple trout. Doc talk 10:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  Your apology is, of course, fully accepted. Let's get back to the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  Ah, yes. The discussion. You do remember which stage of the flow chart we're at, right? That crazy little "compromise" part. Oh, bother! Doc talk 10:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  I am also not a member of a little gang, and resent your disruptive and snide attitude here. You are a gang of one, S Marshall, bent on disruption. Please stop attacking editors here with your innacurate and tactical accusations. You who persecute, claim to be persecuted? A sham. NewbyG ( talk) 10:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  Everybody please read

  I'm not trying to imply bad faith on any side, but I think that everyone involved should read this: I'm sorry if it's been posted before.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  ...but I think that everyone involved should read this:

  Or, for a more realistic assessment, just skip the article entirely and proceed to the comments. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  I found the article a lot more useful than the reader comments. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  What I got from both the article and the comments, is that Misplaced Pages's policies on OR and Verification can frustrate and disappoint people who either don't understand the policies or who want Misplaced Pages to be something very different to what it is. OR and V are not just polite ways of saying that we can't publish total nonsense. Many sorts of ideas and arguments may be part of the human search for truth (a phrase used repeatedly by one of the comment-writers), and yet may not be publishable in Misplaced Pages. For instance, WP recently deleted a page about the idea that Mithraism influenced symbols found on ancient Pictish standing stones. (See Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Pictish_Mithraism). I agreed with the delete decision, even though the page was not obvious nonsense by any means. I think it was a genuine attempt to find out the truth and to contribute to discussion. Unfortunately, it was also right outside WP policies, because it offered a new thesis without an RS. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  Two points. First, the article is highly misleading in the way it represents things. Of course there will be instances where new research can upend the scholarly cart, but like anything else, we are here to reflect the wider understanding as expressed in the scholarship. It would have been a different matter if, for instance, numerous reviews of such a work in academic journals supporting the validity of the research had been ignored. But that is not apparently the case here. Since the author is apparently right in adducing new evidence in this matter, then surely Misplaced Pages will reflect that evidence when it becomes generally accepted. The main frustration here is apparently that Misplaced Pages is as slow as the wider literature to reflect changing ideas. Not only is that hardly a problem, it is to the contrary a great strength in the overall scheme of things. Second, in the comments section, I have to say I found the attitude of "OriginalFrequentPoster" quite funny. Whoever that is, they were clearly a Wikipedian whose own clearly disagreeable and abusive attitude toward others probably got them permanently banned. And now they are reduced to spilling their pent up bile on online comment sections. Reading the week-long (and counting) and increasingly unhinged vituperations of that poor fellow serves as a salutary reminder of the important of sitting down and having a nice cup of tea. Eusebeus (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think your take on "OriginalFrequentPoster" is spot on...Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  A suggestion...

  Could the meaning of the sentence about verifiability and truth be clarified by a couple of sentences like this?

  "Editors should be aware that if they add material unsupported by citations, even if they are certain of its truth, it may be challenged or deleted. Conversely, if an editor deletes verifiable information, simply because he or she considers it to be untrue, the information may be restored by other editors."

  Words like "may" and "simply" have been chosen deliberately, because I think it is futile to try to define strict dos and don'ts which editors would be supposed to apply in every situation. The very nature of Misplaced Pages means that in practice any policy is rather like the "pirates' code" in the movie Pirates of the Carribean – "it's not a list of hard and fast rules, it's more a set of guidelines"... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think that would be a helpful addition. Blueboar (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  Useful suggestion. What needs to be considered is whether it fits well without making the policy bigger for no sufficient reason. (Or can we dream of it actually replacing something?) The thoughts behind the proposal are in themselves useful for discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  If it clarifies VNT in a way that everyone can agree with, I would say that in itself would be sufficient reason to add it. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with the intent, though I think the wording could be clearer and simpler by simply not mentioning truth at all:

  "Added material without citations may be challenged or deleted. Deleted information may be restored if it is verifiable." LeadSongDog come howl! 16:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'd be careful with that last part, as it seems to be giving "permission" to add material with verifiability being the only requirement. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  IMHO the "if an editor deletes verifiable information, simply because he or she considers it to be untrue, the information may be restored by other editors." is problematic. It gives one "no brainer-OK" example of reversion of deletion of material (based on belief of a single editor that it is untrue) which would get widely interpreted as saying that accuracy never matters. In other words, it makes the main problem worse. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think there are a couple of different problems here. One is whether accuracy matters – I agree that it does matter, I generally agree with what is said in the essay WP:Inaccuracy. An example from that essay: it may be verifiable that two persons involved in the 1930 Palm Island tragedy has been referred to as "Peter Pryor" and "Maitland Patterson" in some newspaper reports, but according to most sources their names was actually "Peter Prior" and "Maitland Pattison". In a case like this, I would agree that WP should treat the spellings "Prior" and "Pattison" as accurate. And I would support the idea of saying something about this in the WP:V page.

  Another issue is the "truth warrior". This is an editor — maybe a newbie to WP, maybe both knowledgeable and well-intentioned — who boldly adds stuff he or she considers to be true, or pulls out stuff he or she considers to be untrue... but does this without understanding that verifiability is crucial. It may be "no brain" obvious to seasoned Wikipedians why the efforts of truth warriors can be contested or reverted, but the policy page does need to spell this out for the benefit of the truth warriors themselves. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I partly disagree with Kalidasa on that second paragraph. I agree that it would be helpful if there was a separate essay, guideline or policy section aimed at the truth-warriors, but I don't think it's a good idea to use WP:V for that. I feel that WP:V should be 100% focused on the principle that everything challenged or likely to be challenged should be supported by means of an inline citation to a reliable source. If we need a policy page to deal with truth-warriors then I think the appropriate place is the editing policy (and specifically WP:BURDEN, which belongs in the editing policy and not here), since the editing policy is concerned with editor conduct. WP:V shouldn't be.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with this formulation. It's very good, and, North, verifiability matters, truth does not. B——C_ritical 21:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

  Are you saying that accuracy is never a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement, or are you saying simply that accuracy never matters? If it's the former, I agree with you. If it's the latter, the I have two questions for you:

  • Where did you get that from?
  • Are you saying that this policy should go beyond the former and promote the latter?

  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm saying that accuracy is not to the truth, but to the sources. It's purely about scholarship, and accuracy relative to scholarship is of utmost importance, and accuracy relative to some concept of what editors know or believe to be true or false is irrelevant. Correcting the sources is not within our prerogative. So accuracy in regards to truth never matters. Read the section below for a demonstration of exactly why truth should never matter. B——C_ritical 17:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure but it's possible that I agree with you in the big picture, and probably agree with you on what should happen on all of the examples that you have given. But I am coming at this from a "nuts and bolts"/ mechanics situation. I'd like to ask you a question which is not to debate you or prove a point, but to clarify mine and to clarify your thoughts. Example situation: An otherwise-reliable source and writes something that implies that Martin Luther King Jr. was a KKK member, and that material gets put in an article. For impression/POV reasons, editor "A" likes the material being in the article, even though he knows it is wrong. The other editors say "let's just leave that material out, it's obviously implausible and wrong". There are no sources that "MLK was not a KKK member" because sources don't write refutations of things that are obviously false and nobody is really asserting. My question to you is: should policies empower editor "A" to say that policy says that the accuracy argument for excluding material is irrelevant and may be excluded from the conversation (which is on possibly leaving out material) because "truth/accuracy never matters" in Misplaced Pages. ? Sincerely North8000 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think maybe you want a different example, because in the entirety of sources on the actual King, the WEIGHT of that one source would not be enough to make it into the article. But say you had the same situation with only three RS. Then yes, it might get into the article. I recognize the problem that an RS may say incorrect, even obviously incorrect things, and once in a while those inaccuracies will get into articles. Especially because, as you say, sometimes people don't bother to refute stupid things. But what is it you feel Misplaced Pages editors should do about it? Do you feel we should rewrite OR or WEIGHT? B——C_ritical 20:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  North, in your example, you say that the implication is there in an "otherwise-reliable source", but later you say it's something that "nobody is really asserting". Then what is that otherwise-reliable source really asserting? Is it a case of somewhat ambiguous words taken out of context -- e.g. the RS might have written: "Martin Luther King joined the KKK and the Trotskyists in the campaign against daylight saving time." And a WP editor took that to mean that during the anti daylight saving campaign, MLK was a card-holding member of both the KKK and a Trotskyist group?? As Misplaced Pages:Editing policy says "You should read the source, understand it, and then express what it says in your own words." This is about accuracy to the source, as B.Critical says -- editors do need to try and work out what a source is and isn't really asserting....Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Being a made-up example who's to say. But in the real world example that I drew it from, the erroneous statement was implied but not explicitly stated, and it was not the core statement of the sentence.

  To BeCritical and Kalidasa There actually is a real world example which is a near-parallel to the above. My example was carefully structured for dissection/clarity purposes, not as a maneuver. But nobody has answered my question which goes right to the crux of what I'm talking about. Which was basically "do you think that should policies empower editor "A" to exclude accuracy from that conversation?". It was not "what should be done in that situation?". Sincerely North8000 (talk) 03:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, if it's verifiable and is correct per WEIGHT and every other policy, then it goes in the article. B——C_ritical 03:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks. FYI my answer for that particular case would have been for policies (including, of course, wp:ver) to remain silent (and non-invokable) on that, leaving the situation open for editors and other wiki-processes to freely decide whether to include or leave out that material. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  When mainstream science changes…

  S Marshall, I just glanced at your user page, where you mentioned various sort of untruth found in WP; one sort being "lies that everyone believes—the theories that tomorrow's scientists will refute". You are right that mainstream scientific views change, and change fast. Less than 2 years ago (May 2010) the findings of the Neanderthal Genome Project caused a major reassessment on an old question: did "archaic humans" such as the Neanderthals ever interbreed with "early modern humans", such as the Cromagnons? It now looks like yes, they did... The once-mainstream theory that they didn't, now seems to be in your category of "lies that everyone believes" (or at least, that a lot of mainstream scientists believed). Of course wiki editors cannot anticipate or predict scientific paradigm shifts, but we can keep in mind that they happen... When we present the latest findings of modern science, we may be telling people the objective truth about nature; and then again, we may not be. This is another reason I think it is quite appropriate to say that WP is about verifiability, not truth. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  AAAAaaaaaaaMEN, preach it brothah! B——C_ritical 05:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry if I sound like a science-bashing preacher... In drawing attention to recent changes of scientific paradigms, and raising the possibility of more in the future, I am not suggesting that mainstream scientists will ever again adopt the concept of a 6 thousand-year-old Earth. I would not be surprised at all if the current scientific estimate of Earth's age – 4.54 billion years – were to get revised up to 4.97 billion, or down to 4.16 billion, but 6 thousand years?? It isn't going to happen. Although that is exactly what mainstream scientists did believe a few centuries back, when Sir Isaac Newton was a mainstream scientist. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm quite serious: it's a way of putting that point which I haven't seen before. It is something I've tried to argue, but it's put better here, and I think you made an irrefutable case, which if put to the community would be received. Another way of putting it would be "Good scholarship rather than truth" or "Good scholarship rather than reality." B——C_ritical 16:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Glad I've made sense! I like your term "good scholarship" – it is a good way of expressing what a good WP article is...Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

  Proposed wording for lede: Accuracy and Verifiability

  I've been looking over this dispute, and thought it might help to propose new wording that addresses all concerns.

  The thresholds for inclusion in Misplaced Pages are accuracy and verifiability. Material in Misplaced Pages must be sourced to a reliable publication to ensure accuracy. If sources are contradictory, outdated or erroneous, editors choose the most reliable information or report that the sources disagree.

  The purpose of verifiability is to ensure accuracy, not to mindlessly publish whatever people find. Paper is not magical. Publications sometimes make mistakes or have outdated views. Editors need to apply their intelligence and work collaboratively to find the best sources of information. If the best sources disagree, we can be transparent and say what each source says. Jehochman 15:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Does anybody object to the substance of this proposed edit, and if so, why? Jehochman 21:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  The fundamental choice is whether wp:ver

  1. Encourages accuracy
  2. Is silent (neutral) on the topic of accuracy
  3. Disparages accuracy as a consideration.

  Your proposal is #1, I think that wp:ver should be #2. Wp:ver actually is #2, but has a few ambiguous words in it which allows it to get mis-interpreted as #3. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)0

  The threshold is verifiability. Accuracy is not a threshold attribute. To be accurate a comparison is necessary, and a comparison means we have gone beyond the simple identification of the reliable source.

  Reliable publication should read reliable source. RS are not just publications but may be other forms of communication.

  What happens to sources which contradict each other lies beyond the verifiability policy. How does an editor choose the most reliable information is again beyond this policy.

  Editors can report that sources disagree.

  For me there are too many problems with this version to endorse it. Thanks for the effort.(olive (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

  • What we can take from Jehochman's suggestion is the idea of multiple thresholds. There clearly are. Relevance, for example, is a threshold for inclusion, in that something irrelevant should be removed from an article even if it's sourced to half a dozen professors three textbooks and a partridge in a pear tree.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Accuracy is quite different than truth, one needs accuracy when summarizing what a source or sources say. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. Accuracy of source representation is another concept in policy altogether. Dreadstar ☥ 21:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Many versions of the lead have been proposed to attempt to come to some compromise so, a unilateral edit probably won't be acceptable given the depth of discussion here. (I noticed your change in text). Edit conflict with Dreadstar. This should come after my statement above. (olive (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC))

  • (edit conflict) in considering the proposal I'd suggest one minor change if this is to be done. The last sentence:

  editors choose the most reliable information or report that the sources disagree.

  I think would be better if it was changed to editors should choose the most reliable information or report that the sources disagree. I say that because all to often, what is done, and what should be done are all too often very different things. Other than that the proposal seems reasonable. — Ched :  ?  21:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  There's only one threshold for inclusion, and that is verifiability. None of the other policies come into play unless that threshold is met. Normally, the opposite of "verifiability" is "unverifiable", but in the world of Misplaced Pages, the major opponent or opposite of 'verifiable' is indeed 'truth'. In my view, it's necessary to say straight up front that "the threshold for inclusion in WP, is Verifiability, not Truth". If we obfuscate this great trite WP truth with unclear and vague wording, then the POV-Pushers and Truth-sayers will have a much stronger argument to add their own personal truths. Let me add that we just had a major RFC with hundreds of participants that failed to remove or move this, so why suddenly would a small, local 'consensus' be able to override that? Dreadstar ☥ 21:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Not disagreeing with you Dreadstar. I didn't participate in any of those RfC pages, as I learned a long time ago that the "verifiability, not truth" phrase was almost as intractable as some decree from a King. I'm not even saying I disagree with it .. and when I first questioned it back in 2008, another editor wrote me about 3,718 pages of "why it is the way it is" to explain it to me. (actually I got it after the first paragraph, but I didn't want to hurt their feelings after spending so much time and bandwidth to talk to me. :)). — Ched :  ?  22:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry Ched, that wasn't directed at you, it was just a general comment.  :) Dreadstar ☥ 22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  And we need to be cautious about pushing accuracy here, especially as the threshold - it's an easy slide right into the clutches of Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. Dreadstar ☥ 22:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think that most would agree with VNT if the interpretations were confined to the intended one, as described by Dreadstar. Essentially reinforcing that truth is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. But such confinement has not been occurring.

  I agree that trying to specify accuracy as a threshold would lead to a quagmire. Since wp:ver is about verifiability, it should be silent and inoperative on the subject of accuracy. This means it not trying to require accuracy, and it not being usable to exclude accuracy as a consideration, as the ambiguous 3 words currently allow.

  I'd like to see it in a different new policy that "accuracy is an objective of Misplaced Pages" Including accurate coverage of false beliefs (flat earth) as such, accurate coverage of significant beliefs as beliefs (the 6,000 year old earth), and all subject to wp:npov as currently written. North8000 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Please feel free to invite me to discussions where VnT is being misused, I'd really like to get involved in those and see what the problems are. Dreadstar ☥ 22:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Somewhere within the large library that is the archived records of all the various discussions, Ealdgyth had several instances of people wanting to push in information which could be "sourced" to multiple inaccurate sources which had subsequently been debunked. Try either finding it (don;t ask me how, needles and haystacks spring to mind!) or asking her for a few examples. I know it's infuriated her in some places in the past, so she may well be able to give you some quick answers here. Pesky (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Second attempt

  I think it is important to explain why we want Verifiability: to promote accuracy. To those who want to remain silent about accuracy, why are we talking about The Truth®? Is The Truth® worth mentioning if accuracy is not? I would agree to the following change:

  The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability. Material in Misplaced Pages must be sourced to reliable publications to ensure accuracy. If sources are contradictory, outdated or erroneous, editors should present the most reliable information or report that the sources disagree.

  This neatly ties together all the concepts and eliminates the toehold for POV pushers to argue for inclusion of dubious information based on verifiability. Verifiability is the threshhold, but it is there for a reason, not as an end to itself, and we have to understand why we need verifiability so that difficult cases (e.g. erroneous or contradictory sources) can be dealt with intelligently. See also Dewey Defeats Truman. Jehochman 23:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've explained why I believe Truth needs to be placed directly in conjunction with Verifiability , and I've never stated that we should be 'silent' on accuracy, but it clearly should not be the threshold for inclusion, per my comments here and here. Erroneous or contradictory sources are handled by other components of our Content Policies, but the threshold (not guarantee) for inclusion is verifiability. This does not give an editor license to add incorrect or contradictory content willy-nilly, there are strict Policies on how to handle those types of materials. But none of them are thresholds. Dreadstar ☥ 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think User:Kalidasa 777 made an excellent case for VnT with this comment. Dreadstar ☥ 00:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Truth is an ambiguous word that should be avoided or explained. From truth: Truth has a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with fact or reality. It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal.. Which truth are we referring to? Accuracy, faith, or both? The policy as currently written invites confusion that factual accuracy is less important than verifiability.

  The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not certainty, nor faith. Jehochman 01:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  In context, it means verifiablity is the threshold, not whether editors think the material is true or false. One can make the claim that virtually any useful word is "ambiguous," until the wall of context is encountered. We follow the sources, not what editors think. Your own example of Dewey Defeats Truman helps prove the point, editors don't decide if that's true or not, the verifiable reliable sources do. If it's not verifiable, then it's not included - the way to deal with contradictory or incorrect information from reliable sources is handled by other aspects of content policy. But the threshold must be met before any other content decisions can be made. Dreadstar ☥ 01:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  My issue with "truth" is not that it is ambiguous, but that it is sort of a straw-man substitute for the word accuracy. I say "straw-man" because it has other meanings such as personal opinion and dogma, i.e. baseless opinion.

  With yet another example just given, it's becoming clear that maybe 95% somewhat agree but are talking different topics (and have different priorities). The 4 groups I see within this are:

  1. Like VNT because buttresses the verifiability requirement
  2. Like VNT because it says we don't pass judgement and exclude one significant view over another
  3. Deal in the mechanics / nuts and bolts of the usage of the policy and don't like it's unintended impacts (me)
  4. Don't like the general message that "not truth" imparts; an encyclopedia should strive for accuracy. (S Marshall)

  North8000 (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Why can't we craft something that satisfies all concerns? Clearly a large portion of the community don't like the way the policy currently stands, or else this discussion would have ended long ago.

  The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. By "truth" we mean the editor's personal belief. Material in Misplaced Pages must be sourced to reliable publications to ensure accuracy. If sources are contradictory, outdated or erroneous, editors should present the most reliable information or report all significant views in a neutral fashion.

  Current wording does not have consensus. If you like current wording, please propose alternatives that satisfy the concerns. Jehochman 07:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  The current wording is the longest standing, stable version so until we have something new that is agreed upon, it is the consensus version by default. However, I'm moving on so good luck and best wishes.(olive (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

  Possible quick solution?

  My proposal which gained some support and so far no opposition was to add the following sentence to the end of the first paragraph:

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

  To try to take this somewhere, I'm not asking for the imprimatur of saying that there is a consensus to put this in, but just bit of talk so that it wouldn't be overly crazy of me to try to put it in on a BRD basis. This could be a shortcut to the finish line of a 14 month process that seems to be mired down at the moment. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  I think your explanatory sentence,"Not truth" means that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement", is fine North and wouldn't mind seeing it included.

  Threshold in this context seems to me to refer to the first instance where we consider content and its source, the point where can begin the process of identifying content for inclusion. This first step is called, verifying the content and its source to see if it is verifiable. There may well be thresholds for other policies but we aren't talking about other policies here we are talking about the first step in dealing with content, and the verifiability policy.

  I won't edit war this, and I see that a new editor has added a version which I believe to be inaccurate and which starts the cycle of discussion on that text all over again. So be it. I've compromised on my position, tried to create a version that might be considered for inclusion, and that hasn't seemed to work so I'll leave this to others. I think there are serious syntax concerns with the text in place, by the way, which need work, but again others can deal with this. Good luck and Best wishes.(olive (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

  My concern is that people should not be left with the idea that verifiability is the only thing that matters, or that factual accuracy is irrelevant. We have other content policies, and accuracy does matter. Jehochman 13:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Littleolive oil, I don't think that anyone has rejected your or my ideas, everything seems to just get lost in the ocean of zillions of ideas here which people have gotten wordn out in responding to. What would you suggest regarding "threshold"? Just edit mine or make a new copy with your idea. The goal of my wording was to clarify it with respect to the most common examples of accidental confusion or deliberate mis-use, which is basically to in essence say that meeting wp:ver is the only requirement for inclusion. Usually by arguments that imply that meeting wp:ver is sufficient to force inclusion. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  No, not meaning to lay blame at all. I realize versions get lost in the the discussion and I think actually its positive that so many editors have been willing to spend their time trying to get this right. I just can't sink anymore time into this. What we need at this point, in my opinion, is a way to solidify what we have, to select a version and just go with it rather than go another round on any of the content we've been discussing. I thought we were close several times but then.... apparently not.:O).

  In terms of what you are saying about threshold: We don't have to say everything in one sentence. Several versions do take into account the propensity for some editors to misuse the policy, my reason for being here in the first place. This is my version again with changes, and I included some of your proposed text. Its not perfect, and I am in no way attached to it, just the easiest version for me to to access. I'll leave it at that, other projects and RL call.(olive (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

  The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth— content can be considered for potential inclusion in Misplaced Pages if it is published in a reliable source, or is verified, but verification does not guarantee inclusion of that content in the encyclopedia. "Not truth" means that nothing (such as truth) is a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. Once content and sources are verified, accuracy of content is determined by other Misplaced Pages processes, policies and guidelines

  If this last is being suggested as the opening paragraph... it is a step backwards. We should not start with "The threshold for inclusion is..." we should start with "Verifiability is..." (This is after all the policy on "verifiability", not the policy on "inclusion".) Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  No. Its not a step backwards, its just a version, just trying to put it all together so it makes sense. This is the policy on threshold which equals verifiability. The syntax of this version does not in anyway imply this is about "inclusion" . So do whatever you want with it, but please see it as it is. I'm outa here.(olive (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

  Like the others I think that Olive's has some good thoughts in it. My idea might not be as good as many of these but I think that it is more pragmatic and a better chance of being quickly accepted or (tolerated. :-) ) It leaves the existing wording in place and then adds a sentence to clarify those three words. North8000 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  I just updated the text in an effort to remove ambiguity, but to retain exactly the same meaning of VNT, as commonly understood by experienced Wikipedians. Alleviating ambiguity may help newcomers understand the policy better. Feel free to dive in and make improvement. Jehochman 17:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what to say. Your work looks good. But you're sort of using the main policy page as a place to float ideas and invite tweaking of them. But no other approach as worked so..... North8000 (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  A thought on "accuracy"

  I am not going to suggest any wording... but instead ask a question (which hopefully will open a line of thought for discussion): When we talk about the need for "accuracy" in our articles are we talking about a) "presenting accurate information" or are we talking about b) "accurately presenting information"? Blueboar (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Both.(olive (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC))

  Given that WP:NPOV says to present all points of view (with due weight) ... shouldn't we make a distinction between them? Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  "Accurately presenting information" B——C_ritical 16:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  My answer would be for wp:ver to require verifiability, and to be such that it doesn't weigh in on and can't be used to weigh in on (for or against) the topic of accuracy. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  I don't believe that our community is best served by adding anything about "accuracy" to this policy. In particular, the proposal at hand is a gift to POV pushers: It would embolden them to delete verifiable information they disagree with ("You can't say that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, because that's not accurate!") and to add unverifiable or UNDUE information they do agree with ("WP:V demands that we add accurate information, and I'm telling you that the accurate information is that Obama was born on the Moon!"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  "The Threshold"

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

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

  I think that this is an excellent and much needed change. North8000 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  I have boldly tweaked that around; we shall see how many seconds it lasts before either (1) it gets zapped, or (2) I get zapped! Pesky (talk) 11:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Umm, I removed the bit about defining "threshold" as the word itself had already gone. Do you think the definition should still be there? I'll leave it up to you to do as you see best with it. Pesky (talk) 13:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Wow! Four whole hours! Pesky (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Dispute Resolution

  A dispute resolution case has been filed at WP:DR/N. Anyone may participate. I encourage everyone to work finding conclusion, within the near future, by hopefully particpating there. It makes little sense to discuss this in perpetuity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

  Replacements for VnT

  Jehochman:

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

  Becritical:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Basic disagreement over the meaning of VnT

  As I see it, our basic disagreement is that some believe that VnT means

  Editors must not try to determine whether information is true or false, and it is okay to put verified false information in an article.

  These editors believe that to try to determine truth or falsity per se is original research. Members of this group believe that if we think information to be untrue, we should research what other reliable sources say on the subject. We should then balance the sources to reflect the current scholarly consensus per WEIGHT, even if this means mentioning or even stating something we think is untrue. See this section for an excellent argument of why this must be the way Misplaced Pages works.

  Other editors think that if we know something is untrue, we should be able to modify Misplaced Pages text accordingly.

  We need to resolve this dispute before we can get consensus on text to replace VnT. B——C_ritical 19:46, 28 February 2012

  Instead of reverting endlessly, which is a form of disruptive stonewalling, editors should dive in and fix the page. Current wording is ambiguous and needs to be made clear. Please, make the text clear that (1) it is not okay to add false info just because some source says so. Sources can make mistakes, be outdated, or may be low quality. (2) Verifiability is not the only policy governing inclusion. To be included in Misplaced Pages, content must be verifiable, not merely true, and even that which is verifiable might be excluded by other policies. Can somebody please make and edit that addresses these concerns. Current version does not have consensus support. If somebody makes an edit and you don't like it, please suggest better alternatives. Don't stonewall by reverting. Jehochman 20:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  You do not appear to fully understand consensus or BRD if you think reverting is "stonewalling". Simply because you are an administrator gives you no special reason to label anyone who reverts your edits as "disruptive". You're hardly the first editor that said, "Heck! I'll jump in and solve this myself!" The policy page is not a playpen for radical changes that, in many cases, have been discussed before. So if someone reverts an edit, it's neither disruptive nor stonewalling. Doc talk 20:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Becritical: The answer is, clearly, both. There are clearly occasions when determining the truth or falsehood of a proposition is original research. There are also clearly occasions when it's much too trivial to be original research, even when choosing between otherwise-reliable sources. (For an example of the latter, I can cite a whole platoon of eminently reliable sources that say Pluto is a planet, but anyone capable of understanding this talk page will know that it isn't.)—S Marshall T/C 20:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Jehochman, I know you're new to this talk page, so I guess what you need to know to be up to date is that everyone's tried to dive in and change it, and it always gets changed because there is no version yet which can attain consensus. Rather than another round of "my way" no "my way" no "this way," we have to understand and deal with the fundamental problems. But you and I certainly agree on what needs to be done, in part anyway. Marshall, I agree with you that there are very trivial occasions when OR/correcting sources is okay. As to Pluto, this is where we are merely misunderstanding each other: notice I italicized the word current above. B——C_ritical 20:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  BeCritical, what matters here is that there isn't a bright line. Correcting a source is sometimes okay, and sometimes not. Editors need to decide that on a case-by-case basis.—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Too many edits

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

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

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

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

  • The current version does seem to be a very major improvement over how this page has historically read. I strongly hope that it sticks, and I would be most disappointed if it were reverted and filibustered again.—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been advocating "minimum requirement" for some time now. B——C_ritical 22:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • This ad hoc BRD editing of a core policy page has just got to STOP...and NOW. As to the most recent..."...minimum requirement" in lieu of "threshold", that is just plain definitionally wrong. A "minimum requirement" implies "verifiability" might stand alone as justifying inclusion. That's just ridiculous. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  • "One of the requirements"? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking at the current version, the phrase following the dash after VnT, "facts that are true may not always be verifiable" seems to me to miss the point. It makes it sound like we require verifiability, not truth, because there is some kind of problem with checking on edits. The actual point of the VnT phrase is that editors don't get to put stuff here just because they personally "know" it to be true. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Semi-bold next attempt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I infinitely prefer "A fundamental requirement for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability ...(etc.)" Does anyone want to point out, really, really clearly and unambiguously (so that an HFA editor such as myself can't misunderstand it) what is wrong with that one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Tryptofish - Inre your edit...

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

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

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

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

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

  Trypto, if you honestly believe that...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Arbitrary break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Defining Verifiability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Example

  I've finally come across a good example of VnT: When I go to Bing and search for Santorum, I get the alternate definition as the first result (after Bing news). The article says that it is not the first result, but RS (ahem, if you call it that) say otherwise. I never use Bing, so it's not about my searching history. I know the article is wrong, but I'm not going to question it because the RS say different. B——C_ritical 04:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, that's a terrible example though. Search engine results are so finicky. You'd have to go back in time to when those articles were researched, and do the search from their own computers. I've done these experiments with people from other states/countries, where we compare search engine results when doing the search simultaneously, and it consistently comes out in a different order for each of us. So your example is not one of a falsehood, but merely a subjective truth. Then again, it's appropriately prefaced by "observers have noted". Someguy1221 (talk) 11:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Only a Wikipedian would call that an appropriate preface, since a reader wouldn't get it. What's important is that the statement is often untrue, and should therefore be removed. I mean, it's a good example precisely because of what you say, you just added to my research on why the RS are wrong to make that statement. B——C_ritical 17:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Basically, though, your concern amounts to your belief that our readers are too stupid to understand a complex sentence. Sources need only support what's actually written on the page, not what you believe some readers might misinterpret it as. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Misplaced Pages:Verifiability case at the Mediation Cabal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Example:

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

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

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

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

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

  step 2) the provided sources are not high-quality

  Questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  What to change ? I guess, two things:

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

  Concept - "an idea, esp an abstract idea"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Procedures to detect demonstrable untruths

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

  Do editors' views about truth ever matter?

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

  Comparing some recent versions of the intro:

  1. Revision as of 14:22, 23 February 2012 "The threshold for inclusion in 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." This one (as I read it) suggests that it never matters what editors think the truth is.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiabilty, not truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Could you guys agree the text first please

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Reverts to the project page in the last 50 edits

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

  Page protected

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

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

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

  Back to discussion

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

  1. Also see the section Using sources of the policy No original research, that describes summarizing materials in your own words, leaving nothing implied that goes beyond the sources. Appropriate citations demonstrate that the information is not original research, and allow readers and editors to check the source material for themselves. Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed. Unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace.