Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Under discussion?

The "underdiscussion" tag at the end of the first sentence links to a discussion that has now been archived. Should the tag not be removed until a new discussion begins on this talk page? Scolaire (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that so far everyone has been going by:

"How about we agree to write zero about the RFC, and zero about anything related to the RFC, and zero about the text that is the subject of the RFC until the current closing process is completed? People who do otherwise force other people to do otherwise. Time to chill out."

North8000 (talk) 12:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So let's remove the tag! Scolaire (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove the tag... The lede is still "under discussion" (and probably will be for some time). At the moment, the discussion happens to be taking place off to the side... among a triumvirate of uninvolved admins, who have volunteered examine and close the recent RfC. The rest of us are merely waiting until they reach a decision. Their decision will determine what direction we will take as we move forward with continued discussions. In other words... we ain't done discussin' it yet. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Why invite people into a discussion that they can't join? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a temporary problem caused by the fact that it seems to have taken the closers three weeks to read the discussion. (I don't know whether I'm impressed or horrified that they've read it so thoroughly.) Since removing "under discussion" would suggest that the current version enjoys consensus support, it's clearly inappropriate to do so.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Whereas leaving it creates the impression that we're discussing it, whereas in fact we're being asked not to discuss it. What exactly is the harm in the unwary reader thinking the sentence is not controversial, when the sentence has been there for, what, ten years? Scolaire (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Because right now (at this moment in time), the sentence is the subject of controversy and discussion. The fact that we are not discussing it here on this page, right now, does not mean discussion isn't taking place. The tag tells editors that there is discussion ongoing, which there is... even if (at this exact moment in time) that discussion is temporarily occurring elsewhere. As soon as the triumvirate gives us their decision on the RfC the discussion here will pick up again and continue. Take a longer term view of this... If we removed the tag now, we would just have to add it back in a few days (whenever the triumvirate's decision is handed down). Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

So then just add it back when discussion resumes. That will take - what? - 2 seconds? Compare and contrast that time with the time this discussion is wasting. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Such a controversial move would definitely fall under the above and take this page off the cliff again. As per others above, please do not modify. North8000 (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What's controversial? Nobody can join their discussion. Why do you want to invite someone to discussion which they cannot partipate in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As I think that you know, that is a graceful way of saying "in dispute"North8000 (talk) 17:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

No, actually, I didn't think of it that way. If that's what this is about, fine. But it's still stupid. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

And one of the closers said that comments to the RFC can still be made. It is likely, since it has been archived, that the three of them will be the only ones ever to see such comments; but they may be the only ones who need to.

The present armistice is between those of us who have discussed it to exhaustion; fresh blood is always welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems then the discussion tag should link to the archive of the RfC and not to this page. The whole page is alway under discussion here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Except the archive page says to not edit its contents:

“ This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. ”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Alanscottwalker. If input is allowed in the discussion in the archive, then the "underdiscussion" tag should link to the discussion in the archive. And if input is allowed in the archive, the archive page header should be ignored per IAR. Having a tag with a link that leads nowhere is wrong. Scolaire (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How are you going to tell editors that they should ignore all rules and edit the archives anyway? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Those who want to, will. Those who don't want to, won't. At least the link will have led them to the right place (BTW if you link to the section they won't see the header anyway). Scolaire (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What about those who don't know? Also, how will editors know that the Committe of 3 are still reading that discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Boy, you are on a quest for knowledge, aren't you? The answer to all those questions is: it doesn't matter! If there is a pointer to a discussion, then it should point to a discussion. If it doesn't point to a discussion, it shouldn't be there. What individual editors know about what they are theoretically allowed to do, or about who else is reading a page besides them, has nothing to do with it. Scolaire (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Can someone who knows how to, please undo the archiving. Roger (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• The way you do it is to cut and paste the archived section back to here, and then add the template {{dnau}} to the top of the section you don't want archived. But wouldn't it be better to paste it to a separate subpage if we don't want it archived?—S Marshall T/C 19:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I read it to mean that they would be looking at the comments on this page. 20:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Better to make a subpage and keep all the info together.∞陣内Jinnai 23:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Live hostage dramas are always so exciting to watch! Dreadstar ☥ 18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Ask the question again

Okay, so now somebody has added the section #RFC to the talk page. Can we now please change the tag in the article to {{underdiscussion-inline|talkpage=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#RFC}}, so that the "discussion" link actually links to a discussion (of sorts), instead of a non-existant section? Scolaire (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

No objection... so DONE... However, once we have a decision as to the closure of the RfC, the discussion on this page will continue (The decision will tell us what direction to take those continuing discussions, but will not end them)... so, we will eventually need to re-re-direct the "under discussion" tag so to point to that continuing discussion (when it happens). Blueboar (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Where's the discussion? Something is referred to as "the following lengthy discussion" in the beginning of the talk page, yet the text below begins with "While we're waiting" and seems to be some kind of leisurely chat. I catch glimpses of proposals somewhere in the heap of comments below, but I don't understand where the actual discussion started, who started it and what his argument was. Anyway, if the idea is to remove the "not truth" part because it's a pretext for stupid or uninformed people (maybe even EU ministers? - I didn't read the article) to accuse Wikipedians of being liars and enemies of the truth, then I think it's a bad idea. "Not truth" has been part of the policy formulation for many years, there are countless references to it in discussions, and it captures very well the key thing about Wikipedia that most new editors (and some old ones) don't understand. The way it's formulated now is perfectly reasonable. Even the fact that there is an "under discussion" tag is an embarrassment to the project, which should have a clear consensus on its core principles at this point. It's like rewriting the key articles of the US constitution. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that "under discussion" is also a graceful way of saying "in dispute" North8000 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So what? Where's the dispute then? Who's disputing it? Why is he disputing it? Does any Wikipedia editor have the right to "gracefully" maintain some kind of "in dispute" tag on anything he dislikes, and that for an indefinite period of time, without discussing it, and that on longstanding core Wikipedia policy? (Hint - that's a rhetorical question. When you have failed to manage to gather consensus for a change, you don't get to tag the old version as "semi-valid" for all time instead). Hey, if somebody doesn't like "verifiability, not truth", NOR, NPA, etc., Citizendium is right next door. A project whose very basic principles are constantly in question is doomed.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This should address the situation:

"...not whether editors think it is true. "

--Bob K31416 (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ha! There's a bit of an asymmetry though - at least the second tag leads to a section that really clearly contains what it refers to, whereas the first tag doesn't even do that. If somebody takes a look at this present section, they'll understand immediately who's objecting to what and the reason why they're doing it. Looking at that other section, I don't see any discussion of "whether editors think it is true". There's apparently a lot of stuff about reliable sources, but I don't see any necessary connection with "verifiability, not truth".--91.148.159.4 (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Try looking at the above tags as calming and soothing, like a baby whale and its mother swimming calmly and gracefully underwater......calming and soothing......soothing and calming......you're feeling your eyelids becoming a little heavy....... a little heavier .......calming and soothing......a little heavier.....soothing and calming..... a little heavier ......calming and soothing.....................................--Bob K31416 (talk) 19:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cut the trolling. The pro-change people, to whom you apparently belong, are basically misusing a tag, of which the normal purpose is to invite people to a discussion, in order to do something that was never supposed to be done at all, namely to mark something they dislike as being "in dispute". Until you've gained the consensus to change something, you can't just annul it provisionally - by means of tags or otherwise. Also, the misleading wordings about "following lengthy discussion" should be changed, because it is counterintuitive that it applies to an archived page - I didn't realize that before now, and of course, none of the responders here was sufficiently helpful to point it out to me either.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A general, albeit belated, comment on the proposal - Blueboar apparently meant well, but the ultimate result is a major, possibly disastrous concession to the pro-OR current among Wikipedians which has long been unhappy about WP:V anyway. Even reading many of the comments show that many of the supporters of the change are pretty overtly in favour of OR to start with. Removing the succinct "not truth" and adding a vague note that verifiability is not guarantee of inclusion - without explicitly excluding considerations of "truth" preventing inclusion - borders on catastrophe. It allows the interpretation that we are allowed, and indeed supposed, to exclude a statement supported by a reliable source because we "know" it to be false. No. We can judge about the reliability of sources, or the relevance of the statement, but not about the veracity of specific claims in the sources. Negative OR is still OR. Once you allow negative OR, positive OR is the next logical step (and both had been rampant on Wikipedia even before this proposal to legalize them). The first result will be that whenever a sourced claim about, say, the origin of man from primates is added, people of dubious biological qualifications will start debating the merits of the claim itself, and will delete it if they disagree with it. The extremely wishy-washy note on "truth and untruth", separated at a safe distance from the core description of the policy in the lede, will not prevent that. I'm referring to "If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a neutral point of view (and especially the sub-concept of due weight)." Sure, I can make a few passing references to NPOV and due weight, while also using my own excellent knowledge of the anatomy of hominid ankles to disprove, say Eudald Carbonell's foolish assertions, which somebody else has included. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I overdid it. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Accepted. Best, --91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

When there's a phrase in a policy that a clear majority of editors have a problem with, it's right that the policy should contain some indication of the nature and extent of the dispute. Otherwise there's a risk that inexperienced editors might be fooled into believing that the policy in its current form is accepted by, or acceptable to, the community, when it clearly is not.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't take this long to determine consensus

If, after 3 weeks of effort, you still haven't been able to decide whether or not there is a consensus, that is pretty conclusive evidence that there isn't one. If a true consensus exists, then it should be obvious to everyone. We don't expect a true consensus and are happy with a "rough consensus" (whatever that means), but even then it shouldn't be this hard to determine. We shouldn't be making major amendments to fundamental policies based on an RFC that is so close that it takes more than 3 weeks for the closers to reach a decision. --Tango (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• The delay is because one of the closers is unexpectedly AFK because of real life, Tango.—S Marshall T/C 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Any idea on how long until they're available again? Silverseren^C 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Which one? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• And why didn't the other two notify us? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's Black Kite who is absent, but I was under the impression that they were going to try to find a replacement. Maybe they couldn't.--FormerIP (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It took a lot longer in Belgium Count Iblis (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right. And this is more important, so we should have patience. --FormerIP (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could politely ask User:Newyorkbrad for an update (I forget who the other closer was)? Obviously, we all want to stand back and avoid even the appearance of improperly trying to influence or force a decision (and we definitely do not need the drama that would result from appearing to do so).. but it would be nice to have a rough idea of how much longer we will need to wait for a decision. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

He has been asked.[1] Waiting 203 years would not be unprecedented.[2] Thincat (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I can understand their discussions/ work being in private, but they should otherwise be teslling us what is going on. North8000 (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? Discussions behind closed doors? I certainly hadn't expected that—this is a wiki, so there's a basic presumption of transparency. This isn't an Arbcom case, or a matter involving a user, where secrecy is appropriate. It's a discussion close. Fraught, complicated, but no reason for any secret squirrel business. My feeling was that the closers were simply waiting for Black Kite to return from whatever's taken him away, but once they start talking I would expect a discussion along the lines of a crat chat, so that only the closers can participate but everyone can see. This is how triumvirate closes have tended to work in the past.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that I am showing my lack of experience with this type of situation. North8000 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Email was initially suggested. [3] Leaky Caldron 13:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Not really ideal, and a bit disappointing.—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A Wikipedia editor, away at college, calls home to see how his pet cat Fluffy is doing because he misses him. His brother answers and says, "The cat is dead." The grief stricken editor says. "Oh no! ...... But you could've broken the news more gently. You know how much I cared about Fluffy. You should have said, 'Fluffy got stuck up a tree and we've called the Fire Department to get him down with a ladder.' Then you could update me later with, 'They tried to get Fluffy down but he fell and got hurt and we took him to the veterinary hospital, but they think he might possibly not pull through.' And then you should've called me back the next day with, 'They did all they could for Fluffy but he peacefully passed away in his sleep.' The brother responds,"OK, OK, OK, don't make such a big deal out of it."

The editor then asks, "Anyhow, have you heard anything about the RfC?" The brother responds, "The RfC is stuck up a tree."
(A variation on an old joke.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Today is a day that will go down in infamy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The brother's name must have been Schrödinger. A fitting state for this RfC. Dreadstar ☥ 19:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't vote in the RfC, so I'm willing to step in if the other reviewers would accept my offer to help. I will leave a note on NYBrad's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do, it would be helpful to get an update of how discussions are proceeding (and I don't mean a prediction of outcome, just whether they are making progress). Thanks, --Nuujinn (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please do. And thanks for volunteering. Blueboar (talk) 02:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we're going to try to hold the discussion on wiki. I will post a link here to the discussion once it gets started, hopefully later today. Cla68 (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I started our deliberation page here. Cla68 (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's encouraging. Thank you for taking this step.—S Marshall T/C 12:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell's attempt to co-opt Cla68 is not encouraging at all, and neither is Cla68's speedy acceptance. To quote from the "deliberation page", which I have just sent to MfD: "Only User:HJ Mitchell, User:Newyorkbrad, User:Black Kite, and User:Cla68 should edit this page, other editors wishing to comment please use the talk page."

This inappropriate behaviour happened after I protested at User talk:Newyorkbrad#WP:V. Hans Adler 12:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the particulars, but Cla68's efforts seem to be the only signs of life/information on this. One of the larger RFC's ever, and we've been waiting ~a month after comments in the main RFC were closed, getting no info, and now it looks like nothing was happening ?!?!?!? North8000 (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem. But if it turns out that in the end consensus, or possibly 'consensus', will be determined by Cla68, HJ Mitchell (who apparently thinks it's a good idea to co-opt someone who, according to Arbcom, "has engaged in disruptive behavior, including edit warring, inappropriate use of sources, and comments that were incivil and reinforced a battleground mentality") and pro forma also Black Kite and Newyorkbrad (who don't seem to have time for anything), then we are likely to get an even bigger problem. Hans Adler 12:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

In my imagination of "who would be good for this?' I had 1-2 people in mind that seem perfect...super experienced, super neutral, never-in-controversy and then it occurred to me that the perfect person for this would never touch this with a ten foot pole. :-) North8000 (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess me and HJ Mitchell could conduct this by private communication, but I thought editors would appreciate it being done in the open. Cla68 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

CLA68, it looks like you were sort of involved? North8000 (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone could post a job ad on the admin noticeboard? --FormerIP (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be a very good idea. Looking at the link Bob posted below... apparently Cla68 opined on one of the earlier RFCs that predated this one... so I agree that he/she has the appearance of involvement... I must therefore ask him/her to withdraw as a closer. We need someone who has not commented on the issue at all... at any time... someone who not only is not involved but has the appearance of not being involved. (if we can find such) Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Re Cla68, see for example Oppose #8 of Poll:Misleading opening statement. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I got this info by following a link in a 12:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC) message of Hans Adler at User_talk:Newyorkbrad#WP:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

How about the fact that Cla68 doesn't appear to be a current Admin? Leaky Caldron 15:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

He never was. He failed his RfA, apparently for linking from a BLP AfD to an attack site and seeing nothing wrong with that. (I haven't understood the details yet.) More recently he has been agitating on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere for Wikimedia UK to lose its charitable status for failing to enforce BLP properly. Hans Adler 15:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've placed a notice at WP:AN. --FormerIP (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that we need to slow this down and make sure that there is a solid plan / selection for closing where there will be no actual or appearance of issues. I hate to say "slow down" on this already slow process, but such would be much faster than a close which many would say has real issues with the process. North8000 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree. It's fine and dandy asking on IRC (or where ever) but when Joe Blogs turns up and offers help in good faith which is accepted in good faith but turns out to have had involvement / community trust issues it doesn't inspire confidence. Leaky Caldron 16:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, what do you suggest? We could screen them with psychometric testing... --FormerIP (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Your request at AN appears to be attracting suitable bodies. At least they are Admins and easy to confirm that they have not been involved (most unlikely given the remit). Leaky Caldron 16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

About the process: I don't mind if the closers have discussions off-wiki. I'd like to get occasional status reports, and I believe that we need a good final statement from them, but if they want to wordsmith it off-wiki, without people hassling them, trying to influence them, or bookmarking diffs for later harassment, then that's fine with me. I think that an off-wiki discussion might have the significant advantage of letting them make mistakes in an environment that is much easier to say, "You know, I've changed my mind about..."

And simply in practical terms, how are you going to prevent them from talking to each other? They could set up a sham on-wiki discussion, and you'd have no idea.

And who says that if you comment on a talk page, they'll even read it? If I were them, I probably would ignore any such comments as being intended to bias their reading. I know that several people feel strongly enough about this that they hope to influence the results, but we need to let it go. Closing arguments are over and done. It's in the jury's hands. Our job is to sit and wait for them to pronounce the verdict, not to keep trying to eavesdrop on the jury room or to remind them of our favorite arguments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the protocol, but I tend to think the same as WhatamIdoing regarding the discussion itself. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Status updates would be nice. Even something as short as "We've finished initial reading of all the comments" or "We've begun discussing this amongst ourselves" or "We're getting closer to an agreement on what the RfC means" or "We're still a ways off. Please be patient." Having these kind of statements can be very reassuring that the process is moving forward.∞陣内Jinnai 19:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be very good, particularly at this point. North8000 (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is my conclusion on the RfC. I think it will be interesting to see what the closers determine. I invite them to use my page as a resource, and as a place to hold their discussions if they choose. Cla68 (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

While giving recognition to your efforts, I'm sure you will see why it would be inappropriate to use your particular page. While the template/structure is a good start it now includes your own considered view. That is not an appropriate clean slate from which the closing admins. should begin their public deliberations, if that is how they chose to proceed. Leaky Caldron 23:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that Cla68's summary of those opposing the proposed change omits several key arguments (at least, from my perspective):

1. It's not broken, don't fix it. Despite repeated and repeated calls, nobody could produce a single example of an editor knowingly insisting on including false, but verifiable information in an article. For such a major change in policy, I would expect supporters to have provided dozens of such examples.

Not true. I told of an example of an admin using a source of no recognised authority to insist that a falsehood remained in an article. I didn't list the article because I didn't want to appear to be 'settling a score', but anyone can ask. PRL42 (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Proponents of fringe theories frequently abuse Wikipedia to promote their fringe nonsense. I don't know how many times I've seen a Birther insist that Barrack Obama isn't a natural born citizen, or that he's a secret Muslim. Or a Truther insist that 9/11 was an inside job. "Verifiability, not truth" is a simple, but important tool for trying to bring sanity to some of Wikipedia's troubled areas.
2. The RfC contained a non-neutral title and a non-neutral explanation of the change. The RfC only contained arguments in favor of the change. I suspect that if the RfC only contained arguments against the change, the percentage would be different.
3. 65% 62% is not consensus. This is not a democracy and this is not a vote. And if it were a simple vote, the only situation I'm aware of where a hard number is used on Wikipedia is for RfAs and 65% 62% would fall short.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

#1 is a valid point, and I will add it. #2 is already included. #3 is valid and I will add it. As far as #4, in my opinion when two sides have solid arguments, it comes down to numbers and the fact that the proposed change is an honest attempt at a compromise. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, 65% is not enough to consider a consensus; it's not even a two-thirds majority but a simple majority. I believe the threshhold for deciding a consensus is 75% support. (Speaking as someone who not only has no dog in this fight, but is apathetic about the whole matter. I just have an opinion about when to count noses in an RfC & how to make use of that information.) If you toss that point out but believe the other points are still more convincing, well that's another issue entirely. -- llywrch (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no percentage (short of 100%) that is "consensus". There is no magic line drawn anywhere—not 60%, not 70%, and not 80%. It's not just a matter of vote counting. A discussion that is four lousy arguments against one really good one should be decided in favor of the good argument, even though it is the minority position. (Think about AFDs as an example: Four "sounds unimportant to me" !votes are worthless in the face of of a single "Here's 10 top-quality independent sources specifically on this subject" !vote.) We do occasionally have to make decisions that are basically according to majority votes (e.g., if a decision absolutely must be made and the arguments are equally strong on both sides), but in that extremely rare (and hopefully temporary in all cases, and hopefully irrelevant in this particular case) case, the 65% should normally be valued over the 35%. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not like that with this RfC, because there are not really any objective standards for judging what the good and bad arguments are (setting aside any that were just plain stupid). So I think it's about whether the result of the RfC, which can't be in doubt, is valid or not. --FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Other considerations are the total number of the respondents and how well the respondents understood the proposal.

1) For example, a result of 62% support, 34% oppose, 4% neutral has more significance for a total of 400 respondents than for 14 respondents.

2) Also, one could consider whether the support respondents understood the proposal better or worse than the oppose respondents.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So far we've here been going by:

"How about we agree to write zero about the RFC, and zero about anything related to the RFC, and zero about the text that is the subject of the RFC until the current closing process is completed? People who do otherwise force other people to do otherwise. Time to chill out."

A Quest For Knowledge, by (probably inadvertently) "working the room" with your assertions, you are (perhaps inadvertently) pulling us "off the cliff" from following this. I am tempted to provide responses supporting that several of those points are inaccurately stated or not correct, but there's still hope for not taking that tumble so I won't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free, you guys, to use that page's talk page in my userspace to debate the issue further. I'm hoping that the summary I drafted will help expedite the closing admins' decision. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please, anyone who wishes to continue re-treading the RfC while it being decided, go to Cla86's talkpage and stay there. --FormerIP (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I would really like to hear others' opinions on whether my rationale for the decision I made was sound or not. I put several hours into reading every, single support and oppose vote. Again, however, please say so over there and not here. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I hope, and fully expect, that your summary will not expedite their decision. I expect them to read all of the relevant and extensive material, including your summary and opinion, to reach their own conclusion in whatever time it takes. Your contribution is no more or less weighted than any other of the 400 opinions expressed over a 6 week period. It is obviously not acceptable to use your page to host their discussion since it contains your personal assessment. They will require a clean slate to avoid accusations of being swayed by you (which they will not be because they all know what they are doing). The closing Admin. has offered you some good advice [4], Leaky Caldron 00:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Based on my experience, it takes about three or four hours to read through all the support and oppose votes, while keeping a careful tabulation of the key arguments for each side. Once that is done, I don't think the decision is that difficult. The three admins who have volunteered should be able to give us a decision fairly quickly. If I can do it, they can, and it really should have been done already. Cla68 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

There was some talk previously that the losing side would appeal the result to Arbcom. Why not go to Arbcom directly to resolve this RfC? --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not within ArbCom's remit to decide policy. They can only rule on conduct issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: I realized that the number I used above (65% in favor) is incorrect. It's actually 62%. I have corrected the numbers in my previous post. Sorry for any confusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

276 for, 149 against. North8000 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011

276 support, 149 oppose, 19 neutral. 276 + 149 + 19 = 444. 276/444 = 62%. Again, sorry for any confusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a side comment - "neutral" votes aren't counted in the total, because otherwise they are no different than "oppose" votes. Essentially "neutral" votes are abstentions accompanied by explanations. This is standard in RFA at least. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

CBM's point is reasonable and that is one reason why it is a misrepresentation when only one side's percentage is given. Another reason it is a misrepresentation to give only the percentage of one side's votes is because it hides the size of one side relative to the size of the other. Reporting percentage as support, oppose, neutral is a more objective representation. For example: 62% support, 34% oppose, 4% neutral. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A new set of closing admins?

Looking at the WP:AN discussion... I see several uninvolved admins who say they would be willing to review and work on closing... but I don't see anyone who has made a firm commitment to do so. Are we sure that we have a new triumvirate (or what ever), or are we just hoping that we do? The RfC really does need resolution if we are to move forward productively. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I put something about that there and also an attempt to kickstart clarifying who is doing / will be doing the close.North8000 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the lengthy and protracted discussion and the lack of clear consensus, I'm troubled by any small group of editors being tasked with, in effect, determining if there is to be a tweaking of significant policy language. I have no opinion on the underlying question. My feeling is that it should be closed with the notation of no clear consensus. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"No consensus" means "no consensus either way", not "no consensus to change". If there is no consensus, we would be equally justified in saying that there is no clear consensus to retain the existing policy language. (See Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been avoiding thinking or writing about the "what if's" while waiting....they make my head spin. Especially in the the context that this is a compromise proposal seeking to resolve the matter. North8000 (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I personally think both sides have a reasonable point, though I lean in the direction of the view that "not truth" is unnecessary language that gives the impression that we don't care if things in Wikipedia are true. Perhaps the solution is to go back to the drawing board and find a solution that will get a clear consensus. In other words, it is not an "either or" proposition, and I don't like the idea of power to decide policy being placed in the hands of a small group of people. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

...this is a compromise proposal...

But you assume facts not in evidence. It is a "compromise" for those who believe there is a "matter" to resolve. A not insignificant number of respondees believe that assertion to be balderdash. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we re-enacting this debate?—S Marshall T/C 18:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It's Groundhog Day! --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh goody! Soon we'll get to the bit where the debate gets closed and then an involved user reverts the closer. I'd like to see an action replay of that.—S Marshall T/C 20:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So if we can't find uninvolved editors willing I propose the closing SysOps editors to be SlimVirgin, SarekofVulcan and Blueboar?</tounge in cheek>Crazynas ^t 21:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe Bill Murray? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that Blueboar and Sarek would both make good closers if they weren't already involved here. Blueboar crossed the aisle to propose a compromise, and, as Jimbo said, Sarek did a good close. North8000 (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

hmmm, maybe I should have linked that, take a look at Tongue-in-cheek if you're not already familiar. Crazynas ^t 22:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Tongue in cheek for you, but not for me. I agree with Jimbo, Sarek had a good close. Furthermore, the personal attacks on Sarek by some on the losing side after he gave his decision, not before mind you, won't change the fact that his close was reasonable. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The tongue in cheek was not in regards to weather Sarek had a good close, but more of a statement of three users who would be least likely to be regarded by the community at large as impartial. Crazynas ^t 23:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that when someone closes an RfC, they are not making a judgement on whether or not the proposal is an improvement. They are making a judgement on whether or not the editors' comments as a whole, indicate that the proposal should be passed. It doesn't appear that Sarek has voted support or oppose in the RfC like the 400 editors who participated, so I wouldn't say that he is in the same category of the least impartial as the two leaders of both sides are. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, if we are looking at the same discussion, I see commitments by RegentsPark and Worm That Turned to join HJ Mitchell as the "closing team." "Firm commitment" is a matter of interpretation, but I regard "sounds good" (which is what one of them said) as a commitment, at least. Neutron (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that asking them for a clear answer on on this would be good.North8000 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I did ask them to make an appearance here, which I meant to be a (in)formal last step in the recruitment process. --FormerIP (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

North8000: Ummm...excuse me? Did you forget that the tag on policy page that says this is under discussion? You insisted that we leave the 'under discussion' tag up, but now you complain when people discuss it. Can you please make up your mind? It's either under discussion or it's not under discussion. Which is it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My take is that discussion is not actually banned. However, countless pixels have been spilled over all this and, by now, editors that are continuing to debate it are just repeating arguments that everyone else here is already aware of. If someone has a flash of inspiration and wakes during the night sweating, then they should feel free to post their revelation. But, in other cases, I think an understanding that we should respect each other's mental health by not continuing to drone on and on, rebroadcasting opinions which are already well-documented, is a good thing. --FormerIP (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, you misrepresented me on both counts. Regarding the tag, as I had said a couple of times, my context is feeling that "under discussion" is a graceful way of saying "in dispute". Regarding further discussion on the topic of the RFC, what I said was only:

"So far we've here been going by: "How about we agree to write zero about the RFC, and zero about anything related to the RFC, and zero about the text that is the subject of the RFC until the current closing process is completed? People who do otherwise force other people to do otherwise. Time to chill out.""

Nothing more, nothing less. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I continue to take a long term view of this, and because I do, I think the tag remains appropriate. The tagged sentence is indeed still "under discussion"... even though at this specific moment in time, that discussion is taking place between a panel of admins, and happens to be taking place somewhere other than this exact talk page. The point being... while it is not being discussed here... the sentence is being discussed never the less. And, once the panel of admins are done with their discussion, and they give us some guidance as to how to move forward, there will be continued discussions on this page. Discussion may be paused... but it has not ended. There is no need to remove the tag that informs readers of this fact. Blueboar (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Re "And, once the panel of admins are done with their discussion, and they give us some guidance as to how to move forward, there will be continued discussions on this page." — Could you explain more specifically what you mean by that? It seems like you are suggesting that the resolution of the RfC by the admins would not in effect resolve anything and the discussion would be endless, and the tag would remain. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Once the close has been made, then if the result is in favour, we'll need to adapt this and other policies to use the new wording more concisely and elegantly. If the result is against, then I suppose we'll work on a different compromise and seek consensus for that. Either way, the discussion won't have finished.—S Marshall T/C 16:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I mean that the admins might decide that while the compromise I proposed in the RFC does have a consensus, that the consensus is week. They could decide that my proposal should be implemented... but only as a first step in achieving language that has even greater consensus - that it should be considered as heading us in the right direction... a starting point not a final product.

On the other hand, they could decide that my attempt at compromise does not have a consensus, and should not be implemented. In which case, the underlying concerns that I was attempting to resolve will need to be addressed in some other way. We all go back to square one and try to craft a different compromise... one that will gain consensus.

Or... they could come back with something else entirely... in which case we will have to discuss how to move forward from whatever they decide. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

There are points here that I could comment on, but I think that it's better to first get a decision from the closing admins. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Me too. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Extremist views

Can anyone clarify, in this statement here:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion."

Widely acknowledged by who?

Shouldn't Wikipedia have a more standardised test than this, relating more directly to whether there is actually fact-checking and editorial oversight?

I can understand 'rely heavily on rumor and personal opinon', because by definition that's not relying on facts, and that could be shown. In terms of being promotional or extremist - what does that mean exactly? EverSince (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I recall reading this bit ages ago and being jarred at the same point, particularly with regard to extremist views, considering that what is seen as extremist by the majority in some societies or ages, may be seen as the factually correct and right view in others, all having nothing to do with their editorial procedures, other than that they're likely to be in the minority and have less resources than the majority. EverSince (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC) NB: I'd like to make it clear this is not about what weight extremist views are given within articles on Wikipedia, but whether publications expressing "extremist" (or promotional) views can be automatically considered to have questionable fact-checking/editorial procedures, and so can't usually be used to source factual claims. EverSince (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Widely acknowledged" means "widely acknowledged by other sources", or something that—using your Best Editorial Judgment and common sense—you believe is so similar to other such sources that it's obvious.

It's not always possible for us to find out whether a source engages in fact-checking or has meaningful editorial oversight. When we can't find out the "real" answer, we use the apparent quality of the product itself to make a guess at whether the publication engages in fact-checking and has decent editorial oversight. In our collective experience, people writing crackpot ideas ("Nobody ever went to the Moon!"), selling stuff ("promotional"), or spouting rumors ("Teen heartthrob of the week looked drunk last night! Or maybe that strange expression on his face was due to having his foot stepped on!") have not been the sources with fact-checking and editorial oversight. It might not be true in this or that case, but it makes a pretty good rule of thumb. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello WhatamIdoing.

No doubt this does make a useful rule of thumb for editors (though re 'in our collective experience' I'm not sure an editor can speak on behalf of the general Wikipedia experience of all of us). This guideline doesn't appear to be putting it forward as just a rule of thumb, though - it simply says such a publication is therefore Questionable, and 'Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves.'

Even if the guideline did characterise it as a rule of thumb, I suppose my issue is how the heuristic would be fleshed out if it needed to be.

For example, would sources need to actually state that a particular publication expresses extremist views (and that such views are typical of that publication). Seems unlikely. Perhaps they could just class that general type of view as extreme - but then they might not actually use that term (especially outside of politics or whatever). I imagine that in many cases sources would only be saying that such and such a view is widely considered to be without factual basis or scientific merit.

Similarly with regards to 'promotional' - what are the limits of this. Sure if a publication by its own admission consists of content that is openly selling specific products. What about all the other varieties and shades of promotional activity, that may be characterised by other sources as such, or shown to be through material conflicts of interest?

Re rumor/personal opinion, as I said I wasn't suggesting a similar problem with that, becuse that seems to be just a direct rephrasing of whether are going by reliable facts.

Interestingly. re 'crackpot', Online etymology says "crackpot: "mentally unbalanced person." And Crank (person) says: "a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false." And "Common synonyms for "crank" include crackpot and kook. A crank differs from a fanatic in that the subject of the fanatic's obsession is either not necessarily widely regarded as wrong or not necessarily a "fringe" belief." There's apparently a half-serious Crackpot index. EverSince (talk) 06:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC closure

I'm guessing either everyone's stopped caring or no-one puts archived pages on their watchlist, but I thought it would worth be mentioning that the RfC has been closed. Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence. --FormerIP (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. (I was one of those who didn't watchlist the archive.) And thanks to the three people who had the thankless task of making the decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hrmph. --JN466 00:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm smiling. Cla68 (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record: I never said that you are stupid. Hans Adler 01:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My sentiments preciselym Jayen466. A disappointing outcome, after over a year of effort: Wikipedia's consensus rules lead to the triumph of the 33% over the 62%. A victory for filibustering, and a victory for the tactic of involved users overturning a good faith close. A defeat for compromise, and a victory for obstructiveness. I did predict it. To my amusement, the "under discussion" tag is being removed, which has the unintended effect of facilitating the pretence that VNT enjoys consensus support; please could another user deal with Dreadstar because I don't presently have the patience.

Back to the drawing board, I suppose, in search of a form of words that will achieve consensus. I will have a less bitter post mortem to post tomorrow.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus democracy is difficult... Mlm42 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My advice to everyone (which admittedly, counts for nada) is to shrug it off, work on other things for a while, and let some time pass before trying this again. And please let's not edit war over the "discussion" tag. The RfC is over, and that discussion is over, too. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We supposedly cannot make a minor adjustment to policy in a huge RfC with 60% support? The only good news is that this may well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. There are similar problems with ossification in all our policies. Probably time for a complete rewrite of everything from scratch. Hans Adler 01:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's my feeling too. The result would seem to suggest that our current processes don't allow policy to be changed unless the proposed change is uncontroversial. I don't immediately know what the answer is, though. --FormerIP (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, a significant portion of the community did not consider it to be a minor change. Truly minor changes are made to policies and guidelines every month without controversy.   Will Beback  talk  01:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

In any case, WP:NOT#BURO is our most ignored policy. Do we really have to call an RfC a "poll" and get it rubber stamped by Arbcom before >60% support are enough to get a change? Setting up something like WP:DATEPOLL seems to be the next step now, and I just don't see how the result can be substantially different or how anyone profits from the continued blocking of progress. It's not as if the change proposed in this RfC would have been immune to further editing. Yet some [self-censored] opposed it because they felt it didn't go far enough! Hans Adler 01:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Many people want progress, but they don't agree on what that means. Others don't want to mess up something that works. In the end, Wikipedia does not exist to create great policies, we're just here to create a great encyclopedia. Policies are just aids to that effort, so let's not get too hung up on them.   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Our policies are aids to our efforts. The often misleading, confusing and contradictory ways in which our policies are laid out are obstructive to our efforts. I agree about not getting hung up, though. --FormerIP (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If we had it all to do over again no one would make Wikipedia the same way again. The policies have been misleading, confusing and contradictory since the beginning. Citizendium, now there's a nice logical set of policies! If only we were more like them...   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Somewhere in the archives ... SlimVirgin and I discussed the following wording for the lead sentence:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. It is not enough for it to be true.

For reference, the present wording is

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

SlimVirgin said she would be fine with that change (07:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)). Any objections? --JN466 00:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm afraid that I object to that.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Strongest possible objection ever!!!!! From now on I will object on principle to every change to every policy, guideline, essay or help page. Changing anything about them is too dangerous. Hans Adler 01:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Object, because "verifiability" and "not truth" contradict each other, and therefore the phrase makes no sense. If it is going to be in the intro, it needs to be put into context as Blueboar's proposal did, lower down in the policy. Though perhaps not as far down... which could be the basis of a new compromise. Maybe in the second paragraph. I also have to say, this is quite a system we have here, we take a vote -- and it really was a vote -- and 65 percent was not enough to make the decision, but 35 percent was enough to make the decision. I know "majority rules" is a quaint old notion unworthy of the modern-day 21st Century Wiki-culture (or whatever), but perhaps it deserves another look, at least where the wording of a policy is concerned. It has worked in a lot of places for a pretty long time. Neutron (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it pains me to say this, but for the moment it looks like we are stuck with VNT in the lead sentence, following the RfC closure. At least this wording would mitigate the problem of people using the lead para to wikilawyer that verifiable, but verifiably false, information has to remain in articles. --JN466 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

New RFC

Context: This is the long overdue and so-far-skipped RFC to ADD "not truth" to the lead to have the first sentence read "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". There has been no RFC of any substance on this addition, and so this is the long-overdue RFC to see if there is a consensus for the addition of "not truth" to the first sentence.

The RFC is: For the addition of "not truth" the first sentence to have the first sentence read: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" North8000 (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose Putting in "not truth" = Bad idea. An unnecessary and problematic diversion added to the core statement (and what the rest of the policy says) which is that verifiability is a requirement for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Gives the completely inappropriate impression that we don't care about accuracy when this is actually the most important thing we are after. Besides, I object to any and all contentious changes to policy even if they have strong support, because it's just too dangerous to change anything. Maybe unanimously, but I am not sure. Anyway, in this case it's too late as someone else has already opposed. Hans Adler 01:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - misleading. We are' striving for some sort of accuracy with our editing here, and the "not truth" meme (while sounding catchy in trying to promote verification of sources) is counterintuitive in this. It's just wrong. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose "not truth" is strictly speaking not needed but potentially misleading or confusing.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kmhkmh. It's not needed and creates unnecessary confusion. --JN466 02:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

• As long as WP uses an anonymous contributor model, I don't see how we have anything other than some version of VNT. Since we can't hold contributors/editors accountable for their opinions on what constitutes truth, all we have left is to hold the sources accountable. That being said, as I edit Pacific War articles, I do sometimes unilaterally decide what is true when two sources contradict, which happens more often than you might think in a subject which really isn't that controversial. Sometimes I explain the contradictory information in a footnote, but sometimes I don't. Now, imagine what takes place in a controversial article, such as one with very polarized political positions. So, I can sympathize with the desire to concentrate more on what we know. Again, however, as long as we choose to remain anonymous, we aren't in any position to absolutely decide what is true or not. Cla68 (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

• Just a suggestion, if you're really serious about this RfC, then you need to make sure the RfC proposal explanation wording is complete, clear, and neutral. I suggest passing the wording by a few editors before posting it. This isn't something you want to throw up here off-the-cuff. Cla68 (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point.   Will Beback  talk  01:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the RFC is very simple and neutral. It does provide the history context. Good point that they should be separated; I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose this faulty RFC, it's an obvious attempt to game the system with an end-run around the just-closed RFC results that attempted but failed to remove the phrase. The phrase has already been added and has enjoyed Consensus for many years. This is an abuse of the system. Dreadstar ☥ 01:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the issue. The policy already says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - what change is being proposed?   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That "not truth" wording has so far been in there with no RFC or other significant process. It is time to see if there is a consensus for that "not truth" insertion which is currently sitting in there. North8000 (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's been there for years. There's obviously been a consensus for it. There is certainly not a consensus to delete it, which seems to be the proposal here. I agree with Dreadstar that this RfC seems like an end-run around an RfC which had widespread involvement. Unless this RFC gets as much attention as the just-closed one it would not be valid.   Will Beback  talk  01:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the RFC is for the ADDITION of "not truth". Well somebody reverted the early Nov close saying that hundreds of responses, advertisement in all of the major policy pages plus centralized discussion, and closing with 1 admin vs. 3 was "insufficient process" for such a change. There should be no double standard. North8000 (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can preemptively invalidate this RfC. I do think, however, the poster needs to make sure the wording is the best it can be before posting it, as it is a very serious question. I had to reread it a couple of times to make sure I understood what it was asking. Cla68 (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What would happen to the policy if this RfC succeeds?   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

@Will Beback - I am sure the vast majority of editors over the past five years have not thought much about the page at all, I know I virtually never did. Who knows what the consensus really is, apart from the just over 1/3rd who opposed the change - so who supports it? To answer the edit-conflicted next item, nothing, it stays as is and proper consensus for its inclusion is shown. as it is, the current draft of a page always has a big advantage in most of these arguments that obviously people are't happy with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you're wrong. The idea that active editors haven't read the first line of one of the main policies in five years would be a very poor reflection on this community.   Will Beback  talk  02:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

For certain, it'll represent a fundamental change to the way WP:CON works. If your RFC fails to get something changed or removed because it resulted in no-consensus, then all you have to do is turn your RFC around backwards, and claim there’s no consensus for its existence either, and remove it anyway. No content will be safe when there's a no-consensus result. Dreadstar ☥ 02:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Will, I don't think that any one person can answer all of the "what if's; I think we should see if there is a consensus for the addition of "not truth" and then go from there. North8000 (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Answering Dreadstar, that would only be the case where whatever version is sitting in there got there with no process or insufficient process.North8000 (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's had due process, the phrase's existence here for many years is proof of that. Dreadstar ☥ 02:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, somebody reverted the early Nov close saying that hundreds of responses, advertisement in all of the major policy pages plus centralized discussion, and closing with 1 admin vs. 3 was "insufficient process" for such a change.

Who actually added it in the first place (and when)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems "verifiability, not truth" was first added here. However, the context that was present then to explain what it means has since disappeared. The wording came from WP:NOR, where it was first inserted here. And that came from a draft where it was first inserted here. --JN466 05:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

JN466, That's a very good point re context. Unfortunately, very few here will recognize that, nor recognize an implication, viz. a writer losing a sense of what is needed for explanation as the writer becomes more familiar with an idea. Anyhow, thanks for sharing those diffs.--Bob K31416 (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think someone needs to take this to AN/I, it's the same RFC that just closed. I'd do it, but I don't have the time right now. Dreadstar ☥ 02:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Calisper, I didn't investigate it myself, but from the descriptions of those who did, it sounds like it crept in by a series of small steps, some included changing the original meaning that it first got in by by moving it and removing the context. North8000 (talk) 02:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." The "Verifiability, not truth" wording has extremely strong longstanding consensus from every editor who didn't change it. I believe this RfC is disruptive. I didn't care if the phrase was changed, but piling on this RfC just because you don't like the outcome of the other is disruption. B^e——C_ritical 02:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

"Not truth" has been immensely disputed. Including for the last the last 12 month discussion here. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

So not only did it have consensus before such discussion started, in spite of best efforts by a number of editors, there was no consensus for removal. That's called strong consensus. B^e——C_ritical 02:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• You can't ignore implied consensus. The policy has been relatively stable with this phrase in place....which implies the community has supported the policy as written. This RfC sets a very dangerous precedent for all of our policies and articles As always the problem is those who misuse the policy. Changing the policy can't change editors who misuse policies. Simplicity is memorable and the phrase we have in place is simple. Trying to get rid of two words to fix a problem that is pervasive across Wikipedia, is a band aid solution.

There was a RfC on the disputed phrase after the nine months of discussion and the result was no consensus. Prior to that, the policy was stable for how long?

I see good editors facing off against good editors on this. What is the real issue, the underlying issue. Let's tackle the underlying issues.(olive (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC))

I think that this RFC is the first step in that process in this complex environment. North8000 (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. This RfC sets a precedent. Any content put in place with out an RfC can now be as judged unstable, which is ludicrous. You think this is complex .Wait until editors with agendas start manipulating this little change in how we deal with our articles and policies.(olive (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC))

BeCritical, you just mixed a bunch of things together that would take a book to respond to.  :-). I was responding to your previous comment which said "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus". I was in essence saying that even if that were true, it would not be applicable to "not truth" because it as been both very controversial and very disputed. North8000 (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support closure of this RfC as malformed and misleading. This RfC is not in fact about the "addition of 'not truth' the first sentence to have the first sentence", as that wording is already there. This RfC therefore would appear to be about the removal of this wording. For the record, I am opposed to its removal. What is 'the truth' is a very ropey philosophical issue (as well as all to frequently the product of idiosyncratic revelation) well beyond the purview of a mere collaborative encyclopaedia. The best that such an encyclopaedia can aspire to is a verifiable collection of the published, and thus intersubjective, facts and expert opinions. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 03:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support closure of this RfC as malformed The question is inappropriately phrased, as the current wording has been in place for years, showing consensus. Let's close this and stop wasting people's time. LK (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support closure, per my comment above: the phrase has longstanding strong consensus. B^e——C_ritical 04:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support closure This RfC would not result in any change and appears to be a pointless bit of gaming. I understand that some editors are frustrated that their policy proposal was not accepted. However this RfC will not bring the community any closer to a resolution.   Will Beback  talk  04:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support closure. The primary means of determining consensus is not discussion, it is making a change and see if it sticks. If VnT was fairly consistent for several years, then ipso facto it had consensus then (i.e., dissent was evidently insignificant, and so it remains the default until such time as compromises have been engineered to the point where consensus is renewed). This second RFC is a blatant attempt to alter proceedure to suit one POV, and the effort would be better spent analysing the ratios of different arguments among the previously requested comments as guidance from which to evolve a more widely preferrable version. Cesiumfrog (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Close. POINTY, IDHT, a little bit of forum shopping. Understandably the initiator of this RfC ought to be given a cream and jam scone and a big pot of hot milky tea—this appears to be a stress reaction, and not normal conduct. Everyone ought to be given a scone and tea given the stress of the RfC that finally was closed today. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy close - This obviously POINTY attempted end run around the other RfC by North8000 seems to me to be disruptive. Novaseminary (talk) 05:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment And for what it is worth, it looks like the "not truth" text was added in August 2005 with this edit and was actually pulled from WP:NOR. Editing over the next few months actually increased the importance of the statement indicating that the concious consensus was to include it. Novaseminary (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed JN466 beat me to this point noting it above and noted the original language in NOR was added in December 2004. Novaseminary (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's interesting to see though how it's morphed since then. When it was introduced, the meaning was clearly explained: it's not "enough" for something to be true, someone needs to have written about it, too. That's what the whole long story about Stephen Hawking was about. You know it's true, because you spoke to him in a pub, but you still can't add it, because no one's published it yet. Today, we're no longer saying "it's not enough for it to be true" (which is what I am advocating returning to, in the section above). Today, we're saying "not whether editors think it is true." Do you spot the difference? The way we are saying it now is two-edged. It's no longer just about excluding what an editor knows to be true, but can't prove with a reliable published source, it's now about the duty to include something that we believe to be untrue, just because it's verifably published—because whether editors think it's true or false does not matter. It never had that meaning when originally introduced. If we went back to "it's not enough to be true", the whole ambiguity would be removed. --JN466 08:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose closure There is an neverending mostly repetitive discussion of this formulation and apparently the dispute cannot be resolved this way. So at some point a larger feedback/straw poll and and ultimate (majority) decision by the community is needed here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment But if policy settled for years (with consensus appearing to favor more rather than less prominence) needs to pass an RfC now, don't we need a straw poll on everything? Should we lock every policy and hold one large RfC asking whether any of the policies have consensus? And how do you get around the fact that the issue was addressed in the other RfC? What is the default if there is no consensus, let alone consensus to change? It has to be what has been the longest practice or there is anarchy. Novaseminary (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it settled for years but only debated for years. Nobody suggested we need a straw poll of RFC on everything, but there cases where they are a appropriate and even needed to reach a conclusion - imho we have such a case here. The old RFC seemed hopelessly convoluted without any conclusive result so far, hence I support new RFC with a clear ans simple question/option. I agree that we should avoid anarchy, however that is no excuse for keeping controversial parts of policies, for which arguably no real consensus existed. Many policy variations were introduced and managed by a very few people and the notion that we might keep the controversial ones among them possible due to a small number simply talking everyone else to death is not an acceptable approach in my book. The "not truth" addition is controversial for years and causing constant irritation and in such case imho it should be sanctioned by the community at large and if it turns out that it is not only controversial but a clear majority of the community opposes it, then it needs to go.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Rethink. This is the wrong RFC to have at this point. The right RFC for us to have in the circumstances is the meta-level one: in what circumstances if any should there be a first-mover advantage in a dispute?—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy close - The timing of this really looks like a reactionary, toys out of the pram response to the non-consensus decision to leave the policy as it stands. This, if allowed to sit here indef., will generate more heat than light. It is not an astute way to seek community agreement to modify the long standing policy. It is a highly divisive and disappointing approach. The closer's have suggested a way forward and the community should consider their advice. Leaky Caldron 11:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
• Ambiguous "closure" question Closure would need to follow the results of the RFC (which so far is a determination that there is not consensus for the addition of "not truth".) But more input before that would of course be better. The RFC does not include any action item. The current system has been misused to first say that (per reversion of the first closure) saying that RFC with hundreds of responses, advertisement in all of the major policy pages plus centralized discussion, and closing with 1 admin vs. 3 was "insufficient process" for such a change, and that a small minority can block any change. This leaves a mess in place. With that mess in place, and that "double standard" being promoted, a first step in the tough road (created by what has been happening) is to determine if the addition of "not truth" has a consensus via some process approaching the same standards. The large recently completed RFC was for a particular set of changes. As a sidebar, this new RFC is neither the conjugate of the previous one (it simply asks if there is support for the addition of "not truth" to the first sentence.) nor does it specify any action item. So no individual can say what would happen next, but my thought that if it were to determine that there is no consensus for the addition, then that result would just provide some balance in the context of the process that have been utilized to that we could actually move forward in a discussion to determine the wording. I.E. one small (but necessary given the process) step in the process of resolving this. North8000 (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, please note that this is not spur of the moment, I began discussion of this particular RFC HERE over a month ago.North8000 (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions were made in the closer's sub-pages and we are invited to look at those in the closer's summary below. Also, HJ suggests looking at this issue afresh in a few months - a good idea, but not now. That you started this distraction a month ago was preemtive - and I cannot understand your motivation, other than an all consuming, almost obsessive wish to change the policy using whatever device, mechanism or process you can think of. Surely 1300+ posts is enough? I am not questioning that your best intentions are for the wider project, but you need to know when you should stop and rethink your tactics. Please. Leaky Caldron 12:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to know what makes me tick, when the process is good but I don't like the result, I'm fine with it. Such has not been the case here, starting with the reversion of the close. North8000 (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The phrase "not truth" has been discussed several times on the policy talk page. It's removal from the policy was discussed here, with 4 people discussing - 3 in favour of reinstating it. The nature of truth was discussed here and here. Linked, ongoing discussions on the issue here, here, here, with a subpage - Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/truth, and more discussions here, here, here, here, here, here, etc, etc. The term has been questioned (mostly by one now blocked user), and there has been support for it. It didn't just appear and wasn't noticed until 12 months ago. People have had problems with it, but the consensus has been to keep it. I think what the talkpage archives and the policy history shows is that the term is problematic for some, and that it would be worthwhile us discussing how we can explain it better, but that there has been prior established consensus for it to be in the policy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

By the standards which reopened the RFC, "not truth" has never gone through the required process. But, regardless of what one feels on that, here, finally, is an RFC narrowly focused on that very question so that we can find out once and for all if there is a consensus for the addition of "not truth". North8000 (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Re-establishment of RfC on second point?

I'm not going to be around for the next two days, but I wanted to just get this discussion started. After reading through the closing rationales from the three admins, it is clear that they all feel that the second part of the RfC, in regards to adding the paragraph explaining "Verifiability, not truth" in a more concrete way, was one that is more likely to pass if it is not involved with part 1 of removing the idiom. So...should we start a new RfC only dealing with adding that paragraph? Silverseren^C 04:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Gis a month or two first perhaps; but only perhaps? I opposed based on the second paragraph's poor wording before even addressing my own complex feelings on VNT. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Then we should be working to improve the wording now so that all sides are happy with how it's worded (or as close to all sides as we can get). Silverseren^C 06:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Another point made is that the proposed wording was too long, and appeared to many as a change in policy, rather than just a clarification. I suggest crafting a much shorter and succinct change that scrupulously avoids changing policy (even in terms of emphasis), but clarifies what needs to be clarified. LK (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, how do you think it would have changed policy or appeared to? --Bob K31416 (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a question

How many times has the "not truth" bit been attempted to be deleted, only for that deletion to be pretty-much-instantly reverted? The fact that "It's stayed there for so long" doesn't necessarily mean that there's been consensus for it - just that nobody has been successfully able to remove it. Just a thought. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Given we're at D, there's no need to B, because I'd R for POINTY. :) Fifelfoo (talk) 08:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal re "Under Discussion" tag

Because the current first paragraph is only supported by about a third of editors, the "under discussion" tag is putting it a great deal too mildly. I think the true understanding of the RFC result is that the current wording only survives by default while we agree on how to replace it. I don't want editors to be deluded into thinking the current wording is estabished policy.

Accordingly, I propose that we replace "under discussion" with a new tag that reads: "This paragraph is outdated. Please join the discussion about how it should read."—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not really how I read the RfC or intended my support at least. While I supported the proposal, I don't oppose the current wording. It is good as it is, but as many people claim that it can be misinterpreted or is too strong, I could support a compromise proposal as well. But my support for that compromise proposal shouldn't be read as an "oppose" for the current wording. Fram (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but also, balanced numerically by those who were broadly in favour of change but opposed because they didn't like this change. Individual opinions vary enormously. Taking the RFC as a whole, I understood it as a broad condemnation of the current wording.—S Marshall T/C 10:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by the 3 administrators when closing the RfC

For convenience, I copied and pasted below the closing comments from Archive 53#RFC - Compromise proposal re first sentence.

Closing comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Somebody suggested that this might be the largest RfC, in terms of number of participants, in the history of Wikipedia. Whether that is true or not, it gives an idea of the scale of the task of closing it. The three administrators to whom the duty of closing this discussion fell were RegentsPark (talk · contribs), Worm That Turned (talk · contribs), and HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs), each of whom independently compiled their own thoughts on this RfC on a user subpage (Regents Park, Worm That Turned, HJ Mitchell). All three of us arrived at the conclusion that there is no consensus to implement this proposal, and each has written his own closing statement. Editors seeking a detailed post-mortem of the discussion are referred to the closers' subpages.

All participants are thanked for their patience in awaiting a close, the result of which was inevitably going to disappoint a significant number of people. The closers would like to take this opportunity to express their gratitude, on behalf of the community, for the decorum with which the vast majority of participants conducted themselves for the majority of the discussion. Blueboar (talk · contribs) is to be particularly commended for his efforts in putting this proposal together. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RegentsPark

My decision is that the RfC should be closed as "no consensus". The primary reason is that WP:V is an important policy document on Wikipedia and changes to it should only be made with strong community support. A 65% (or 62.5%) level of support does not provide that necessary degree of comfort. Additionally, it appears that many editors, on both sides of the aisle, believe that the changes are a policy change rather than a mere clarification. Since that was not the intent of the changes, and since policy is, in the final analysis, solely contained in wording, I suggest that going back to the drawing board is probably a good idea regardless of the level of support. --regentspark (comment)

Worm That Turned

On the face of it, it appears that there is a clear support of the proposal, indeed that was my initial reaction. However, it is essential to remember that the RfC is not a vote, but rather a discussion. Having looked in depth at the arguments made by both sides, the outcome isn't nearly as clear cut as it appears to be. For one thing, partially due to the structure of the RfC and partially due to the minor nature of the change, there are editors holding the similar opinions, but in both support and oppose areas. On top of this, there are many editors who have provisos against their vote, large portions of the supporting editors do not support the proposal in full.

Weighing up the arguments on both sides, they are pretty even in strength, and to me, the whole thing appears to boil down to one very important question - Is "Verifiability, not truth" clear enough for the first sentence? Most supporters acknowledge that it is evident what it means when taken in context, but on the other hand most opposers acknowledge that it can be misinterpreted. There are clearly many editors who do not believe it is clear enough to be in the first sentence and this proposal is a "first step" towards making that change.

However, whilst there does appear a very strong opinion that something needs to change - notably that the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" needs more focus, there does not appear to be consensus that this proposal is the right way to go forwards. So, for the time being, the status quo should be maintained. Worm^TT · (talk)

HJ Mitchell

One of the first questions in need of an answer is whether this is a proposal to change the policy or to make a semantic change to a policy page. The answer is that this must be treated as a substantial change to policy simply because of the sheer number and strength of opinions it has provoked. Many arguments have been raised for and against this proposal, with the majority of unique rationales to be found in the oppose section, but such is often the way when people are asked to support a proposal or provide a rationale against it.

The proposal as written has failed to gain consensus for its implementation. However, the waters have been muddied somewhat by including two separate (albeit related) changes in one RfC. The proposal to reword the lead, and in particular to remove from it the phrase "verifiability not truth" has met with considerable opposition. among the stronger arguments, opposers to this part of the proposal have objected to what they perceive as an attempt to reduce the importance of that phrase, to the increased verbiage in the proposed amendment, and to what they believe would increase the complexity of the policy and add to instruction creep despite the attempt to clarify it. Also mentioned was that the proposal appeared to be expanding the policy into areas already governed by separate policies and guidelines (such as reliability of sourcing). I hold no opinion on the merits of the arguments that attempt to address the substance of the proposal, but that these arguments have been independently expressed by multiple editors would suggest that they have legitimacy. I acknowledge that a majority of editors favour the proposal, many of them with excellent and well thought-out, articulately expressed rationales. However, Wikipedia is not a democracy, and making a major change to a core content policy when the changes is vehemently opposed by about a third of the community would seem foolish and ill-considered.

Instead, further discussion should take place in the future (at least a few months from now) to see if any common ground can be found. It is likely that such discussion might be very productive in the case of the second part of the proposal (to elaborate on the meaning of "verifiability not truth" in the body of the policy). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? }}

--Bob K31416 (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I should mention that all 3 of us are willing to discuss and answer questions on this matter, though I don't know if the other two are watching this page Worm^TT · (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've got a fiver that says they're watching.  :)—S Marshall T/C 09:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

What more would have been the minimum that you would find sufficient for passing the proposal? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• There are excellent reasons why it's a bad idea to put a strict numerical threshold on consensus.—S Marshall T/C 10:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - as far as I'm concerned, I'm not looking for a numerical threshold (and if I were, this policy would have passed it IMO, which I alluded to in my statememt) - however I'm looking for consensus and that's what I didn't see. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the question was not specific to numbers but pertained to any criteria for consensus. What more would have been the minimum that you would find sufficient for passing the proposal? --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see a slightly more focussed proposal, which would allow the supporters to support without provisos. There were contradictory arguments that didn't help, for example many editors on the opposition camp were stating that they felt this was a change to policy, whilst the supporters were saying it was a change to the wording only. This lead to a lot of "yes it is, no it isn't" arguments, with little productive outcome. In general, the community does appear to be tending towards a wish to change this policy, it's just that this proposal was not the one to get through. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the question pertained to the proposal and responses that you just ruled on. What more would have been the minimum that you would find sufficient for passing the proposal? In other words, what would have been the minimum change in the responses that would have resulted in the proposal passing? --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm unsure what you're after. Do you want me to say "I would like to see X more supports or Y stronger arguments", because it doesn't work like that. Many of the supports were "weak", in that they accepted this proposal, but only tepidly because they didn't like the wording or actively not accepting it parts of it. The reasons that they put forward for the change were roughly equally balanced with the those put forward by the opposing group, though the opposers just clearly disagreed with this proposal, together as one. There just wasn't consensus. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean you would have passed the proposal if some of the supporters were more strongly supportive in their comments? --Bob K31416 (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Difficult to say, it would depend on how many of the supporters were more strongly supportive and what reasons they put for their comments, but yes, quite possibly. Although there was no consensus, I do believe it was tending towards supporting. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Something borrowed (something blue)

Yea I know it's a nonsensical header, but with the verbiage around here all the obvious titles are taken...

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. Truth is not sufficient, readers must be able to check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

[5]

I feel both addresses the remove 'not truth' camp (obviously), while not losing any meaning (and I simplified it). Response? Crazynas ^t 12:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)