Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Accuracy

"This expresses the position that us in the accuracy camp find most objectionable: that source errors are not to figure in the exclusion of material" [1]

This idea is either a misunderstanding of policy, or a misreading of the text. Correcting sources is original research. Where sources contradict, we use WEIGHT to correct or balance them. Whatever the case, it is not our job to correct sources... and if you think it is, then you are in trouble with WP:OR. So ruling out versions based on either misunderstanding should be invalidated, at least in the final RfC: such reasons should be cause for a closing administrator to give no weight to a comment. B^e——C_ritical 18:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "this idea". If you mean the principle to which I object, well, then we agree, more or less. If you mean my objection: well, the problem is in that word "contradict", because identification of contradictions has frequently been characterized as OR. And to some greater or lesser degree, those who so characterize it are correct at least that it is research, because everything we do about finding sources is research. I would agree that we should not be taking a statement and modifying it to make it say something different from the source; however, I do think we should be omitting altogether statements that are sufficiently dubious. That is why I find some of the Group 1 drafts more acceptable than most of the Group 3 drafts: it's one thing to be talking about truth not being sufficient for inclusion (I don't disagree with that), but the Group 3 drafts imply that falsehood is irrelevant to exclusion, and that's not an acceptable principle for an encyclopedia. Knowingly reproducing error is (properly) fatal to our reputation as a reference work. Mangoe (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(added later) Yes, ironically, although #3 was to be one of the more change-oriented groups, a certain sentences in about half of them made the original problem even worse. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We agree here. There is room for another footnote, or addition to OR, which would note that saying there are differences between sources is not OR and is within the editorial prerogative. Also, per WEIGHT, one would leave out a statement which other sources contradict. What I believe you misunderstand is that when the draft says that falsehood is irrelevant to exclusion, it does not mean the sources are to be ignored. Or even that you couldn't do simple math and decide not to use a source based on its mistake. So further explanation may be in order, either a footnote or addition to policy. But the text can stand as it is, because we exclude or determine dubiousness based on other sources (or very simple OR). To put it another way, your position is not based on editorial belief of truth or falsity, but on sources, and the sentence does not forbid using sources. So you're right and the sentence doesn't contradict you. B^e——C_ritical 19:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

IMHO once the verifiability requirement is met, this policy should remain silent on what happens next. Other policies, mechanisms and considerations should determine what happens next. So my next statement is an example but is otherwise off-topic here: BeCritical, it should not be a big deal for editors to decide to simply leave something out of the article, without saying that it needs an RS to contravene it to do so. As a clarifying example, lets say that a wp:rs makes an erroneous statement that obviously in error is so implausible and unheard of that no other source has addressed it. Editors should not be constrained from deciding to simply leave it out. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course they can leave it out... I think the point BeCritical was making is that the policy that allows us to leave it out isn't WP:V... it's WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). We WEIGH the source... and due to its obvious inaccuracy we can give it very little weight (Or even NO weight at all)... that is what allows us to not mention it. Blueboar (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, it's WEIGHT (or simply that no one wants to put it in). And also agree with North that we shouldn't deal with other policy issues in V (beyond mentioning that you have to take them into account). I would write a draft that did that, but I don't think it would get consensus. B^e——C_ritical 23:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with moving the issue away from WP:V.  That still leaves a lingering puzzle of how do we resolve the underlying problem, and where it will pop up again.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding pieces of dubious info that no editor wants to put in, that is hardly a problem. Wikipedia is not compulsory, after all. If no-one wants to put in a particular claimed fact, then no-one has to.

Surely the real question is what should happen when someone wants to put something in, and someone else thinks: "Hey, that just can't be right." I had that experience some time ago, when I found a statement describing the planet Mercury as a possible habitat for life. Although it seemed pretty weird to me, I didn't just pull it out, instead I checked the RS cited, and I found that the citation did not actually support the claim. The source given only mentioned water molecules in Mercury's very thin atmosphere. The logical leap from water molecules to possible Mercurian life was a WP editor's OR.

If I hadn't had the time or the energy to check the source, would I have been justified in just boldly deleting? I think not – whatever wording we end up with in the intro to WP:V, deletion of on-topic information, backed by a citation, simply on the grounds that it looks dubious to me… is surely a recipe for edit wars. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

How can you argue that "dubious info that no editor wants to put in" is not at issue, when the problematic sentence would require editors to start doing so?  Unscintillating (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

"Because Wikipedia does not publish original research, whether editors personally believe information to be true or false should never determine Wikipedia content."

This is exactly right. If there is sufficient WEIGHT to put any information in, it should go in. See, the only way information can be "highly dubious" is if it has little WEIGHT. If it has a lot of WEIGHT, but editors consider it dubious, then it should go in. When you say "dubious info that no editor wants to put in" that means "info that has little WEIGHT." Or else it is wrong to leave it out. B^e——C_ritical 02:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In the "baby was carried 10 miles" section below, a Reuters report has been found that seems to allege a contradiction.  By the preponderance-of-the-sources scale, this is only one viewpoint, and so has little weight.  Therefore, it would be POV pushing to mention this minority viewpoint.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A baby was carried for ten miles by this tornado.

See: Talk:Early March 2012 tornado outbreak#A baby was carried for 10 miles by this tornado.  Multiple international news sources reported that a baby was carried for 10 miles by a tornado.  After I made this post, without further discussion, the sentence was removed here.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting example. The AP report, which you mentioned on the talk page, but didn't actually quote, does say that "the child was found" 10 miles away from her family home in New Pekin. You may be right in thinking there is a one-word error there, and "found" actually means "admitted to hospital". Personally, I would want to look at a few more sources before dismissing what AP says as an "urban legend". Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So it's probably a good example of people doing OR and misrepresenting sources, in other words, basing WP articles on information they personally believe to be true. It's just the kind of thing the sentence under discussion says we should not do. If the sources overall say the baby was carried, then the article should reflect that. B^e——C_ritical 05:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

So I think we can agree that in and of itself, the story had sufficient WP:Due weight prominence for inclusion in Early March 2012 tornado outbreak.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

With emphasis added, WP:NOR states in the lede, "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed."  Is it your position that the editorial decision to remove this material from Early March 2012 tornado outbreak constitutes "adding" OR?  Unscintillating (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If the info is not in accord with the sources, it was probably OR- if I understand, it was getting "carried by wind" out of "found." Removing it when it has sufficient sourcing would be a WEIGHT violation. But at any rate the sentence proposed for V would not prohibit taking that info out in the case that WEIGHT does not require it to be there. The sentence in V wouldn't do anything you don't like, at least in this example. B^e——C_ritical 16:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'd like to back up to the step where I said, "I think we can agree that in and of itself, the story had sufficient WP:Due weight prominence for inclusion in Early March 2012 tornado outbreak."  Here is a story from Oslo, Norway:

• "Google translate Norwegian to English. Angel (15 months) died after tornado". Dagbladet. Retrieved 2012-04-08. Angel Babcock (15 months) was found alive but severely injured, in a field 16 kilometers home after a massive tornado struck the house and killed his [sic] parents and both siblings in the U.S. state of Indiana on Friday.

Here is a story from the Sydney Morning Herald:

• Rosa Prince in New York (March 5, 2012). "Baby Angel dies after being blown 16 kilometres away from family by tornado". Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2012-03-10. Washington County Sheriff Claude Combs said that Angel was found near the body of her mother...brother...and sister... Her father...was also found dead.

Unscintillating (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, you did say there was sufficient WEIGHT. Well then, assuming there are no contradictory sources (and forgive me for not reading the talk page much, I don't have much time these days), I would say it is mandatory to include the information, and that the sources are sufficient to state it in Wikipedia's voice. If there are contradictory sources, then describe the controversy. I imagine that the dates of this source versus others might be something to consider. Our beliefs are not to be the deciding factor: "whether editors personally believe information to be true or false should never determine Wikipedia content." So without sources to fully back it up (and the source above disagrees somewhat, but is insufficient to disinclude per WEIGHT), this edit is wrong. But I'm not quite sure here whether we agree or not? B^e——C_ritical 20:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we agree that a baby being carried ten miles in a given tornado is prominent in an article about that tornado.  I still don't know if you think the sentence "whether editors personally believe information to be true or false should never determine Wikipedia content" is a change to policy, or if removing untrue information by any means is a form of "adding" OR.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've found a Reuters article dated 2012 March 5 . It says there: "Officials had originally reported that Angel had been found 10 miles away from her home, but a spokeswoman for the St. Vincent Salem Hospital where she was initially taken later said she was found close to her home." Reuters, like AP, is major and reputable news agency -- unquestionably a reliable source. Judging by this Reuters report, AP did not make an error, not even a one-word error -- they reported what they were told by local officials. However later information from the local hospital contradicted the earlier report...

How should WP treat this? Well, I don't think it was necessary to delete the whole thing. The point is that the story went all over the world, and was published in mainstream non-sensationalist newspapers. (The Sydney Morning Herald is not the National Enquirer!) So, why shouldn't WP tells its readers what Reuters says -- initial reports, from local official sources, led to the international news stories of the 10 mile (16 km) flight, but later information from the hospital said no, those initial reports were not quite right?

Regarding the principle involved, I agree with Becritical... Surely removing existing content from WP is at least as serious a step as putting new content in? Is it your position, Unscintillating, that even though we can't add stuff to WP based on personal opinion, it is fine to remove stuff simply because we suspect a reputable news agency has made a one-word error?? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Now is a good time to bring up an immensely important structural distinction which I think that most folks miss. "Fine to remove" can mean 2 absolutely different things:

• Policy gives weight and empowerment to the removal.
• Policy does not forbid the editors from deciding to remove it, nor is it interpretable to empower an individual to block such a discussion or removal from occurring.

North8000 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that you agree with the second of these but not the first? That if an editor wants to removed a piece of information that is verifiable, but suspected to be inaccurate, then policy should not "give empowerment" to such a removal, but nor should it be "interpretable to empower an individual to block such discussion or removal from occurring"? In your view, what if any policies or principles should editors consider when discussing such removal? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

"I still don't know if you think the sentence "whether editors personally believe information to be true or false should never determine Wikipedia content" is a change to policy, or if removing untrue information by any means is a form of "adding" OR. Unscintillating" No it's not a change of policy. Removing untrue information is fine as long as 1) we know it is untrue because of other sources and 2) as long as it is not prominent enough for inclusion even if it is untrue (as above). In the latter case, we describe the contradiction or controversy. You see here that is all about sources, not the beliefs of editors. No change of policy. BTW, what I would do on an untrue statement that is not contradicted is to attribute it. We have to go on the principle "if they're not lying to me, I'm not lying to you." And yeah, the only exception as North said, is that if everyone agrees to remove something, it can be removed per consensus/IAR/editorial judgment (which is to say that the sentence does not override IAR). But if an editor were to come along and object to removal against WEIGHT, then he would have policy to cite. B^e——C_ritical 05:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Answering Kalidasa 777, yes I agree with the second, and disagree with the first. And I think (that provided that the untrue information is sourced) wp:ver should remain silent on the matter. If it is a matter of difference of RW opinion then WP:NPOV kicks in. But, beyond that, IT IS NO BIG DEAL for editors to decide the leave something out of article, no policy basis or compelling reason for that is required. It is the norm. This is the pervasive structural point that some folks completely miss. 99.99999999999999% of all of the material in the world is "left out" of any given article, for a multitude of reasons. It's no big deal, it is the norm. North8000 (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

North, in the case we have been talking about, a particular bit of material was not simply "left out", it was taken out, actively removed. I raised the question: In your view, what if any policies or principles should editors consider when discussing such subtraction? Your reply seems to be that WP:NPOV is one principle that can kick in, and beyond that the principle involved is NO BIG DEAL?? You're quite right -- some of us had completely missed that one! I just checked and discovered that yes, there actually is a WP policy section called WP:NOBIGDEAL... except that it is about what it means to be a WP administrator, it is not about content policy... I do agree with you, however, that WP:NPOV is important here. At least there we have one principle that, apparently, you and I agree can apply to subtractions as well as to additions. What I still don't quite understand: If WP:NPOV applies both to subtractions and additions, why should other basic principles, like NOR and WP:V, apply just to additions, but not to subtractions? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

From my own point of view, what I personally meant (and read it as meaning) was that sourced material shouldn't be taken out just because an editor thinks or believes that it was false / inaccurate, they would have to meet the WP:V requirement to prove that it was false / inaccurate / contested. So "whether an editor thinks it is false" is insufficient reason , on its own to decide it shouldn't be included. Hence the bits about linking to essays on accuracy, what to do with conflicting sources, and the caveat about when experts disagree. Pesky (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict, responding only to Kalidasa:

From a pure logic standpoint, wp:ver places a condition that must be met for presence of material. Changes in state (e.g. adding, deleting) are really off-topic if you are talking about the core logic of wp:ver. The same for wp:nor.

From a core logic standpoint, WP:NPOV is slightly more complicated, and I spoke imprecisely. It basically dictates (certain aspects of) the required end state of the applicable situations, and empowers/ gives a strong argument to editors who want to make additions and/or removals that would would move the material towards the state dictated by wp:npov.

When I said "no big deal" I wasn't referring to wp:nobigdeal. But to give you usefully-silly-sounding example, lets say sentence says the Iowa and and Kansas are US states. I can just remove the 2nd "and", I don't need a policy reason to remove it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Pesky, policy only applies when there is no consensus and material is contested. And you would indeed have to have policy reasons for removing such material. Otherwise, we can do whatever we want here. B^e——C_ritical 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I read Pesky's point about proving something to be "contested", as meaning that you could cite verifiable sources to show the sources themselves say different things about that point. Pesky's reading of the draft text is very similar to how I've been reading it, actually. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

North... If policy pages like WP:V and NOR aren't supposed to tell us anything about what sort of content-changes -- or "changes of state" -- should and shouldn't be made, then why have policy pages at all? You've mentioned removing a redundant "and"... OK, that's an example of a deletion without a policy... But how much does a syntax fix like that have to do with deleting information on grounds of inaccuracy?

Look, I can see good reasons why some people want to make it easier to get rid of sourced inaccuracies. For instance, the other day I noticed an article about the Nanjing Incident of March 1927. It includes statements about Chinese history -- about who was at war with whom when -- which (on the basis of my general knowledge of this area) I found very very strange. The statements are also in contradiction with info on other WP pages. Yet the material in question does seem to be backed by some verifiable sources.

Question for you, North: Should I feel free to pull the strange stuff out on the basis of my general knowledge, or on the basis on using WP itself as a source? I thought not, so I've simply raised some points on its talk page, and tagged it as in contradiction with another article. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

To answer I'm going to have to go structural on you and say that your question is ambiguous, and ask you to clarify which of these is your specific question (followed by my answers):

1. What do I think about your removal of material based solely on your believing that it is wrong? Usually a bad idea, particularly if it relies on some special personal knowledge. But there are some possible circumstances where you think that everyone will agree that it is an obvious error and everyone will agree that it should be removed, and it's not in there to fulfill wp:npov in a balancing situation, then try taking it out on a BRD basis.
2. Should policy categorically forbid you from making such a removal? No.
3. If you propose the removal in a discussion should policy give others grounds for blocking that discussion on the grounds that "accuracy is irrelevant"? No
4. Should policy give you anything that could be construed as support or an imprimatur for the removal to help make your removal prevail in an ensuing discussion or dispute? No

In short, unless it is a special case of a wp:npov-balancing situation, policy should remain silent and leave it to the editors at the article to decide about removal of that material.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

North, that's beautifully put, and wonderfully clear. I'm wondering if it might be possible to include something like that on the WP:V page, somewhere? With relevant links to relevant stuff (like consensus, etc.) Pesky (talk) 08:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

North, I agree with you that policy should not suggest that accuracy is irrelevant. I also agree that policy should not, as you put it "give you anything that could be construed as support or an imprimatur for the removal ", if the removal is on grounds of personal opinion or personal knowledge. The question is not whether accuracy matters -- we agree it does -- but how do you know -- or how do I know -- that a particular piece of information is inaccurate, how can I show its inaccuracy to other editors, how can other editors verify what I say about it? Which is the sort of question which a policy about verifiability should at least begin to address... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Time for another reminder of what the original intent of VNT was... Originally, VNT was focused exclusively on the addition of unverifiable material (don't add unverifiable material, even if true), and was not intended to say anything at all (one way or the other) about the removal of verifiable material.

Perhaps we need to make that intent clearer... perhaps what we need is a statement that says (proposing concept here, not specific language): "The removal of verifiable but inaccurate information is not within the scope of this policy".

Alternatively, If we do want to discuss the issue of removal of verifiable but inaccurate material in the policy, Perhaps we should say something along the lines of (again proposing a concept here, not specific language): "If you feel that verifiable information is inaccurate, do not remove it until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal has been established. Keep in mind that rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely." This would make it clear that we allow discussion about accuracy... and do allow removal in some situations, but prefer other options (such as rephrasing how the material is presented). Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment Pesky. I often think that the reason that some conversations elsewhere go on forever is because we are dealing with questions on operative effects of policies while leaving the question vague. BTW, all 4 of my answers, plus the first paragraph of Blueboar's comment could be fully implemented by simply having wp:ver remain silent on this topic.

Pesky, your compliment gave me the kick in the butt to do someheting that I've been planning on which is to generically list the operative-effect scenarios of policies. It will look something like the above list. I plan to do it at the essay wp:Strategic issues with core policies But OI think that if (as I propose) we get wp:ver to be silent on that topic, then I think that a summary of what the means (i.e. my list) might be helpful. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That would create the biggest, best single bridge between the autism-spectrum and neurotypical editors that there could possibly be! (see section below). Aspie/autie people need to have somewhere to get really precise information on how to apply stuff which might look vague to them, and what you did above absolutely hits that nail squarely on the head. FAQ's, scenario clarifying stuff, things like that, can make such a huge difference. For anyone who's not aspie/autie, it's probably impossible for me to explain this well – but it's a bit like suddenly being given a key to a foreign language. There's that "Wow! So that's what it actually meant all along!" moment. Go for it, and have a humungous hug from me to help you along! Pesky (talk) 04:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Nabb, IN

To the assertion that editors cannot remove material just because they think it is false, this is fairly easy to disprove, but what I've got here is a less than simple example, here.  The WHAS-TV story seems entirely credible, it has a reporter's name, I expect anyone here can contact this reporter.  I had on my "I can add it if the source says so, there must be a good explanation if the reporter said it is true, and anyway I'm a volunteer and I can hide behind the source for now" cap on when I added this material.  The problem is, note that the WHAS-TV report says that Nabb is in Clark County.  Comparing this with the Google map shows that Nabb is on the border of Clark and Scott counties.  Compare the NWS track of the tornado with the Google map and the two do not intersect.  So I have no doubt (it was only my own doubts until the IP posted) that the IP address has accurately (at least from one viewpoint) removed the sourced material.  Even made a mess of my citation.  The "true believers in WP:V" will have no problem in reverting this IP editor.  Those of us who care about the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source have a bigger problem, because we now have two points of evidence that contradict the reliable source.  And this is a major point that is so rarely mentioned, the true believers' viewpoint is on the side of expediency, that editorial time should not be spent to analyze "that-material-is-inaccurate" discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The current WP page about the Nabb community begins by saying that it is "in Lexington Township in Scott County and Washington Township in Clark County" (italics added). If that is right, then the WHAS-TV report, which says that Nabb is in Clark County, is not exactly wrong on that score, just incomplete. They really should have said that a part of Nabb is in Clark County...

"Compare the NWS track of the tornado with the Google map and the two do not intersect." That looks to me very like the sort of synthesis of published sources that is prohibited under WP:NOR. If it is not OK to add material on the basis of that sort of synthesis, why should it be OK to subtract material on the basis of the same sort of synthesis?

I'm not sure who these people are, that you call "true believers in WP:V"... Maybe I'm a "believer" myself, maybe not... But do you really think that sort of name-calling is helpful for consensus? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Oooo, I really don't think it was intended as "name-calling", I didn't read that kind of concept into that, at all. Pesky (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a simple case of multiple viewpoints, and that these viewpoints can all be integrated.  One part of this multiple viewpoint is that I said something that was pointless and unnecessary.  Another part of this issue is that I haven't sufficiently identified what I mean by the concept of a "true believer".  A related issue is that there are editors who deny that there is a problem with VnT, so it is worth drawing more attention to the concept.  The start of solving any problem is identifying the problem, so I've added a section below titled "true belief".  Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Blueboar's points -- a new start?

Something Blueboar wrote in the "tornado" section, which I thought could begin a new stage in this conversation...

Time for another reminder of what the original intent of VNT was... Originally, VNT was focused exclusively on the addition of unverifiable material (don't add unverifiable material, even if true), and was not intended to say anything at all (one way or the other) about the removal of verifiable material.

Perhaps we need to make that intent clearer... perhaps what we need is a statement that says (proposing concept here, not specific language): "The removal of verifiable but inaccurate information is not within the scope of this policy".

Alternatively, If we do want to discuss the issue of removal of verifiable but inaccurate material in the policy, Perhaps we should say something along the lines of (again proposing a concept here, not specific language): "If you feel that verifiable information is inaccurate, do not remove it until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal has been established. Keep in mind that rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely." This would make it clear that we allow discussion about accuracy... and do allow removal in some situations, but prefer other options (such as rephrasing how the material is presented). Blueboar (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the original intention of the policy – is that necessarily the crucial thing? Are the needs of the WP community necessarily the same now as when WP:V and other core policies first took shape? Even if "verifiable but inaccurate" question wasn't important (one way or the other) for the original writers of the policy, does that mean it is unimportant now? Without wishing to write a thesis on the history of WP, maybe the focus of what editors are doing has shifted over the years, away from rapid building of new articles, to consolidation and fixing-up of existing ones... In the rapid building phase, the crucial question was "what sort of stuff should you add?" But maybe now it is just as crucial to address questions like "what sort of stuff should you take out?", "what sort of stuff should you keep?"...

• Regarding Blueboar's two suggestions...

1. To say something like: "The removal of verifiable but inaccurate material is not within the scope of this policy." I don't see that as a helpful way of addressing the "verifiable but inaccurate" issue, even if it's historically quite true the policy wasn't originally intended to cover this point.

2. To say something like: "If you feel that verifiable information is inaccurate, do not remove it until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal has been established. Keep in mind that rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely."

I think that is a very constructive suggestion, though I would suggest a little more needs to be said about the nature of the discussion, e.g.

"If you feel that verifiable information is inaccurate, do not remove it until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal has been established. Discussion needs to focus on source reliability and due weight, rather than on the personal views of Wikipedia editors. Keep in mind that rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely." Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You are touching on an immensely complex area affected by many policies, guidelines & processes, plus (IMHO) another guideline that needs to be written and become prominent. And one not covered at all in the body of wp:ver. IMHO the lead of wp:ver is not the place to deal with this complex topic. North8000 (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually as demonstrated by the Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15#The_first_recorded_use_of_the_phrase_.22conspiracy_theory.22_dates_from_1909.3F_WRONG.21 and aftermath fiasco WP:VER IS the de facto place to deal with this complex topic. Right now, the only obvious way to remove inaccurate information is claim the source does NOT meet Verifiability and that is a messy confusing and disjointed mess at the best of time.

"The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909." (Knight, Peter December 7, 2006) Plots, paranoia and blame BBC TWO. A Senior lecturer in American Studies, University of Manchester making a clear statement in a respected paper...and totally inaccurate!

"I must content myself with saying that the class-conspiracy theory of economic development may generally be considered false,..." in The Economic review: Volume 1 Christian Social Union (Great Britain) Oxford University Branch 1891 Page 540.

"Such a view of the case, if it were generally entertained, would have an important bearing on the conspiracy theory." (Ellis Thompson, Wharton Barker The American: a national journal: Volumes 19-20 May 10, 1890 Page 67)

"There is more and more doubt of the conspiracy theory. None of the Cabinet officers approve it, and the President himself does not believe in it." (McCabe, James Dabney (1881) Our martyred President ...: The life and public services of Gen. James A Garfield pg 556)

It can be VERIFIED Knight's statement is WRONG.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if wp:ver we written to simply requirement verifiability as A condition for inclusion, and were written to just "do no harm" in other areas, then false sourced material could be dealt with by other processes. North8000 (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried that with my "first threshold" wording and THAT went exactly nowhere.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy question in the RfC

We've got quite a few people saying that accuracy could be a valid topic of discussion for the verifiability policy, and we have had drafts popping up that include new sections about accuracy. I think a good way to present this to the community would be to make the accuracy debate a separate question in the RfC. That way we could discuss an accuracy section on its own merits, without the question being clouded by what editors may think of the lede of any particular draft. It would also allow us all to concentrate on getting the ledes right for the work group drafts without having to worry about whether to include different sections or not. Does this sound like a good idea to everyone? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that this mediation effort is an effort to re-write the lede.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Re "We've got quite a few people saying that accuracy could be a valid topic of discussion for the verifiability policy" — Perhaps we shouldn't address that here, but instead work on leads for the present state of the Verifiability policy. Any addition of the accuracy topic to the Verifiability policy should first be proposed at the Verifiability talk page and if not settled there, it should be given its own RFC. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that we are working on ledes to solve the problem of people claiming that WP:V says that editors can't discuss the removal of inaccurate material unless they have a reliable source that says that it is inaccurate.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with Unscintillating that it's difficult to separate issues of lede wording and of what to do about the (in)accuracy question. Don't all recent Group 2 drafts mention "verifiable but inaccurate" material within the lede? An aspect of the RfC that has been raised in the past, but not much worked on, is the idea that there should be a list of questions about principles, as well as a set of drafts. If we are going to do this, I'd suggest that an important question to include in the list would how much, if anything, WP:V ought to say about the (in)accuracy question. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Design concepts in rewriting the lede

During these discussions regarding rewriting the lede, I have seen a pattern in some initially disparate comments. For example, Jc3s5h writes, "The main thing that I think is missing from [a particular draft] is an explanation of why we have a verifiability policy."  In Group 1 Draft 3 the author places emphasis on role viewpoints, separating readers from editors.  Group 1 Draft 4 draws attention to an implied scope.  Another editor elevates the need for clarity in definitions.  Another editor argues that the WP:MOS standards for an article lede don't apply since WP:V is a policy page.

There must be a lot of experience here in writing various technical documents, what other design styles are related?  I've listed two below.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Standard Operating Procedure

I did some Google searches on "Purpose", "Scope", "Responsibility", and "Definitions".  Various entities discuss concepts such as the writing of standard operating procedures (SOP). These authors at this website write, "Our experience has shown that a good written procedure will contain certain elements."  Without listing every element there, the elements include:

• Purpose
• Scope
• Responsibility
• References / Related Document
• Definitions
• Attachments
• General information
• Procedure

Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't help noticing that they talk about "a good written procedure" rather than "a well written procedure". At first, I thought that it was, well, not well written, but then I got the feeling that they were really more concerned about the ideas within a procedure document than with the writing of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "good written procedure" does not have a hyphen, a "well written procedure" is a written procedure that is well.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You might want to do some Google searches about hyphen usage for adverbs. Or not. Not a big deal. I think, in any case, that they are focusing on what should be included, rather than on how it should be written. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This page supports that "well-written procedure" is hyphenated.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed! :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

ANSI Standards

As I recall, ANSI standards come with two parts, the Standard itself and the Rationale.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I do a fair amount of both technical and legalistic writing. In Wikipedia policies/guidelines we have jumped down a rabbit hole into an alternate universe where such standards don't apply. By those standards a more precise and less problematic version of the whole lead of w:ver could be written in 2 hours with 3 sentences. North8000 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I agree completely that there are standards available on how to write material that directs. I'm not sure it matters which standards we use as long as we all use the same one. When I wrote a draft I attempted to use a format that described the standard then went on to give a loose rational in two categories the editor and the reader. I saved you all by stopping short of making a chart to show how one aspect can give rise to another.:o) I think it would help this process very much to establish a common denominator in writing....a standard of some sort.(olive (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC))

Would be nice, North did you already post the version you mention? B^e——C_ritical 20:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. It would be really short if you boiled it down to it's operative clauses / purpose. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Aspie/Autie thing

I've been formulating a user essay on this (see WP:AUTIE); one of the challenges we should consider is ensuring that whatever we write is sufficiently clear and unambiguous that it's easy for all our editors to understand. The Recommended reading section of that essay goes into more detailed information as to why this is necessary, and bearing in mind that we're highly likely to have a bigger-than-global-average percentage of autism-spectrum people here (WP is a honey trap for us!) it's something to consider. Pesky (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Like That's really good! Thank you for developing that essay, and for pointing out the issue in this context. It would be very helpful if you could take a look at each of the drafts coming out of Groups 2, 3, and 4, to see if anything needs to be written better in this regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Like" :o) But ... eeeeeeeeek! Probably not today; I'm having trouble keeping my brain in gear already! I'm recovering from major surgery on my neck, and full of opiate-based pain killers. I will try to get around to that at some point, but I can't guarantee anything deadline-compliant. Pesky (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

All the more kudos to you, considering what you are going through. Please accept my very sincere best wishes for a quick return to feeling fine. You are in my thoughts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice essay. Consider fuzzy logic and precise logic. Seems like a well functioning person can apply each when appropriate. Perhaps the aspy/autie has difficulty with fuzzy but is quite good at precise, whereas the average person is OK with fuzzy but has difficulties with precise. In Wikipedia, precise logic would correspond to the strict application of policies, whereas fuzzy logic would correspond to the application of WP:IAR.

Here's an excerpt from the animated film Mary and Max. Max is an aspy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, yes, that covers quite a lot of stuff. Of course, there's as much variety between Aspies and auties as there is in the whole of the neurotypical population, as well, and it's not a toggle thing - it's a continuum.

What North did, up above, was one of the best bridge-building things I have ever seen. It's fantastic. Running through what do do with specific scenarios makes such a huge difference, and wording it soooooo clearly and beautifully. Aspies and auties are very good at "precise", and are the most likely people on Earth to see where there's a discrepancy, or things are mutually exclusive. If we sit there thinking "wtf?" when faced with something, it's because there's a serious discordance somewhere in it. @Tryptofish: thank you! The actual surgery site is doing pretty well, but I had partial paralysis in many of my left shoulder and upper-back muscles, because the nerve signals just weren't getting through, and now, of course, they are ... and those muscles which had atrophied are now being (literally!) forced to work, all the time, and I expect you know what muscles feel like when that happens! And it's mostly the semi-automated, interactive muscles of the rotator cuff, which stabilise the shoulder joint, and all work together, so you just can't "choose" to rest one of them – if you move your arm at all, all the muscles come into action, regardless. Still, that burning thing is temporary, it will probably sort itself out within a few weeks. Pesky (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. All along I've thought that dealing with the (underlying logical) mechanics of policies in action has been the missing Rosetta stone of sorting out a lot of things here. North8000 (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is totally different in that you have well meaning editors falling into POV situations and not realizing it.

Horace Miner's deeply sarcastic 1955 Body Ritual among the Nacirema article demonstrates just how the views you went into could drive even the very nature of the supposedly "raw" data you were collecting. Carl Sagan stated in Cosmos that "Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves." James Burke went further in Day the Universe Changed episode "Worlds without End" and showed how the very structure you use can effect what you think is valid data to begin with.

The Christ myth theory article is one such example where for a long time certain sources meeting WP:V were used to argue that other sources were not discussing the topic at hand and involved buckets of WP:SYN and POVing out the wazoo to claim that there was ONE Christ myth theory rather than what turned out to be a mish mash of closely related matters that at one time or another had that or closely related terms applied to them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Truth about POV stuff is that it's human nature to be blind to our own ... Pesky (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But this goes back to the whole Verifiability not truth issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll at work group one

Please see Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/27 February 2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Group 1#Straw poll - including draft 0. I would be grateful if everyone could leave a comment there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are we re-writing the lede?

Somewhere along the way, this mediation has taken on the task of rewriting the WP:V lede.  Has anyone stopped to ask why we are doing this?  Unless we know why we are re-writing the entire lede, we may be "condemned to repeat the past" going forward.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The core of it is what to do about VNT. I was asserting that possibly the compromise on this is already in place, but that view was not pursued /utilized. Unless that were agreed on and utilized, we still have the big question open and this is a good process to resolve it. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that we can make changes to VNT without rewriting what is around it. Even small changes ripple out and affect the rest of the lede. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Has anyone actually identified a real problem that needs to be solved? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to right now with the possible compromise in place, or the older version e.g. circa fall 2011? North8000 (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The question, at least in my mind, is what specifically is the purpose of using the mediation to do more than changes/clarification to:

Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable.

Unscintillating (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a very good question. I think I will leave it up to the participants here just how much they would like this mediation to cover. The main issue, of course, is VnT, but I do not want to outlaw making other improvements to the lede. The extent to which other aspects of the lede are covered here should be arrived at through consensus and discussion. A lot will depend on the final format that the RfC takes, I think. Please bear in mind that the RfC will include both drafts and discussion about VnT in general, although we won't know exactly what form it will take until we get there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫, —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC).

So...did anyone figure out the problem yet? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the focus needs to be what (if anything) to do about vnt. But the answer could include other changes in the lead. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The "problem" is simple... a lot of people have concerns about the VNT sentence, and want to address those concerns... but we can not agree on how to address those concerns. Mixed in to this is the fact that different editors have different concerns (and what is a concern to one editor isn't a concern to another). Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be rather hilarious if the outcome of this discussion were to be a decision to drop the mediation and RfC processes, and return the lead to the old version. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The chance of that outcome from this discussion is miniscule. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I mean, what problem are we trying to solve? IOW, which articles are being hurt by VnT and how will the rewriting the lede fix these articles? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There's about 300,000 words (my guess only) on the problems in the 2011 wp:ver talk page archives. Of course, those are by the person who say that the problems exist. Other folks say that they don't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Those 300,000 words were so totally focused on the first sentence of WP:V that we have dedicated archives for such at WT:V/First sentence.  So those 300,000 words are all evidence that there is no need to be re-writing the lede here.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a lot of words, but whenever I try to ask what the actual problem is, I never get a real answer. I'm met with silence, vague answers, or with examples that don't stand up to scrutiny. However, BruceGrubb has taken a stab at providing some concrete examples. I've replied to him below. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I take it that we've clarified that it is not one of your issues whether we rewrite the lede or focus on the two sentences marked "under discussion".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability is truth (the reason WHY for the rewrite)

This needs to go to dispute resolution

The reason I got involved in all this was due to the nonsense that went on (and to some degree still goes on) in Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition and Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15#The_first_recorded_use_of_the_phrase_.22conspiracy_theory.22_dates_from_1909.3F_WRONG.21 where Verifiability in of itself is viewed as truth. In other words we are now seeing the "it is the truth because this Verifiable source says so!" in addition to the "It is the truth because I believe it is true". Before you bring up WP:NPOV this "it is the truth because this Verifiable source says so" mentality can also result in "Well this Verifiable source says the opposite so your source is clearly NOT reliable and therefore doesn't count." effectively shooting WP:NPOV right between the eyes. Debates between sources depends greatly on how much weight we assign to each source. It's what I like to call "Comparative Reliability" - two sources can both be deemed "reliable" when judged on their own, but one source might be deemed significantly more reliable than another, and thus given more weight... and that might well mean the less reliable source is given no weight at all (ie "your source doesn't count"). Granted, this can be abused, but it is a valid point never the less. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Blueboar, you seemed to have missed the point here entirely. If source A is being used to claim source B does not even meet Verifiable then WP:Weight gets shot between the eyes before it even gets out of the house.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC) "We can't say anything if a source doesn't say it" A related problem is the "we can't say anything if a source doesn't say it" mentality. For example I have these three Verifiable but conflicting sources: 1) "(i)n the 1930s, editorials and research refuted the theory of focal infection". (2002 Ingle's Endodontics 5th edition) 2) "(t)he focal infection theory fell into disrepute in the 1940s and 1950s", (2006 Carranza's clinical periodontology) 3) "dental focal infection theory never died" (2009 Textbook of Endodontology) Now according to editors in this group I can NOT claim these sources conflict if I don't have a source saying they conflict. We are having this type of argument currently at Talk:Christ_myth_theory#Removal_of_synthesis_tags and it is as nonsensical as it sounds but there it is. I would agree with those editors. To my eye, the sources (or at least the sentences you pull out and quote) don't appear to actually conflict... they appear to form a continuum: the theory is first refuted in the 30's... as time passes the theory falls into disrepute... but it never completely goes away. Where is the conflict? Blueboar (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC) I think you are reading things that are not there into the statements. Furthermore here is some more information that PROVES there is a conflict: "One cannot deny the existence of such a mechanism as operates in focal infection, ie, infection in one locus leading to manifestations elsewhere in the body. One has but to call to mind the metastases that occur in such infections as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, pneumonia, typhoid fever, and mumps. I cannot support the statement in the "critically appraised" report on dental foci of infection that "later laboratory workers were unable to confirm the bacteriologic findings of Rosenow on which the concept of 'elective localization'" (1952 Southern California State Dental Association journal) Other sources showing there to be a conflict are: Dougherty, Joseph Mary ; Anthony James Lamberti (1954) Textbook of bacteriology; Mosby pg 231 Fowler, Edward B (2001) "Periodontal disease and its association with systemic disease" Military Medicine (Jan 2001) Garg, Nisha; Amit Garg (2007) Textbook of endodontics Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 2 Galloway, Thomas C. M.D. (1957) "Relation of Tonsillectomy and Adenoidectomy to Poliomtyelitis" JAMA. 1957;163(7):519-521. doi: 10.1001/jama.1957.029704200010 Pallasch, Thomas J. DDS, MS; Michael J. Wahl, DDS (2000) "The Focal Infection Theory: Appraisal and Reappraisal" Journal of the California Dental Association Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188 Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) Essentials of oral medicine PMPH usa; Page 159 "Today, in spite of a decline in the recognition of the focal infeciton theory the association of decayed teeth with systemic disease is taken very seriously." (Dunning, James Morse 1986; Principles of dental public health Harvard University Press pg 272) Yet despite this we are told that unless there is a source stating there is a conflict we can't say there is a conflict. Ridiculous.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC) All or nothing This is something I have had to use because too many editors don't seem to understand as they see a source is either reliable or it isn't. So instead of debating if one part of a source is reliable you have the whole thing being judged. It is as much a disaster as it sounds.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Regarding conspiracy theory, words can have multiple meanings. In today's English language, "conspiracy theory" is pretty much synonymous with outlandish fringe theories such as 9/11 was an inside job, JFK was assassinated by the CIA, the Apollo lunar landing was a hoax, etc. It's even sometimes applied to theories which don't necessarily involve conspiracies such as Bigfoot, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster. What's more, there are real-life conspiracies such as Watergate or the Nazi-Soviet plan to carve up Poland in WWII. People sometimes confuse these two types of conspiracies. You conducted original research and concluded that you found a source that used the words "conspiracy" and "theory" back-to-back. But which kind of conspiracy theory were they talking about? Are they talking about outlandish fringe theories or theories about real-life conspiracies? Some quotes from the original sources and the article content would be helpful in determining if there was an actual problem and if so, what exactly the problem was. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Moving us beyond the debate over the history of the term "Conspiracy theory" (please)... Bruce makes a valid point here. Reliability isn't an all or nothing thing. A source can be deemed reliable for one statement and not reliable for others. Reliability is also context driven... a source may be deemed reliable in one context and not in another. Then we have the issue of degree of reliability... two sources may both be deemed "reliable", but one of them might be considered significantly more reliable than the other. In this case, we must assess the degree of reliability between the sources and assign them WP:Due Weight. All that said, this isn't something we should spell out in WP:V (and certainly not in the lede)... It seems more appropriate to discuss it in WP:IRS. Blueboar (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC) Here are the sources I am using. "A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government."(Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9) "a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17) "As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 730) "Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category. We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term." (Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6) "But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.) "What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy. A Quest For Knowledge is claiming these sources are original ie THEY ARE NOT RELIABLE. Wiley, ABC-CLIO, SUNY, Edinburgh University Press, and Ashgate Publishing are NOT RELIABLE?!? THIS is prime example of the type of insanity we are dealing with.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Primary sources, fringe websites, and all those things, are "self-reliable" insomuch as they are reliable for quoting their own views, etc. If a source, which may not be considered "reliable" for the information it holds, nevertheless contains the phrase "conspiracy theory", it is reliable for it containing the phrase. It's a reliable instance of that phrase having been used by that source. Pesky (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Are you saying Books are websites?!? or that Knight's, Bratich's, Pigden's, and Coady's works are fringe or primary?!? THAT IS INSANE! No that is BEYOND insane. That is VnT gone mad as a freaking hatter.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC) I think perhaps Pesky was referring to previous discussions that we have had about conspiracy theories? In any case, this particular discussion seems to be veering off course; we have gone from your reasons for getting involved with the WP:V discussion to a general discussion of conspiracy theories. Also, we seem to be retreading old ground here. As well as our previous discussions of conspiracy theories, we have just had quite an extensive discussion on the issue of "verifiability is truth" in the Accuracy section above. I think we should limit our discussion to new suggestions of how to deal with the accuracy problem. If that doesn't happen, then I can see myself collapsing this thread in the near future. (And this is not helped very much by the WP:SHOUTing... let's keep things calm, thank you.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC) I'm confused. You argued that Knight was wrong about the first use of the "conspiracy theory", but then provided a source (Knight, no less) which stated that "a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else." So why was Knight wrong to differentiate between these two different situations? As I said, words can have multiple meanings.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC) P.S. I have never said that these sources are unreliable. Instead, I've argued that the sources are being misinterpreted/misused. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Do you have sources backing up that belief or is this an example of the type of "truth" VnT was originally designed to address? Furthermore, the statement "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates back to a history article from 1909." was made in a BBC Two article (Plots, paranoia and blame) while in the ABC-CLIO source above on page 17 Knight states that the 1997 Oxford dictionary suggests "that the first recorded usage of the phrase was in an article in the American Historical Review in 1909". He does NOT say that the Oxford dictionary states this only that it suggests this. You now seem to saying that BBC Two has more WP:weight then ABC-CLIO in terms of quality control...THAT IS INSANE! I have to ask did you familiarize yourself with what really went down in that mess or did you just speed read through it?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Look, Bruce, I know you mean well, but this discussion about conspiracy theory isn't really relevant to the mediation, and it is wasting people's time. Let's get this conversation back on track. We know what the general problem is - some editors take "verifiability" to mean that if something is verifiable then they must include it, regardless of other factors. The question is, what do you propose to do about it? How can we change the verifiability policy so that this will not happen? If we don't talk about this aspect of the conspiracy theory situation very soon, I'm going to collapse the thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Bruce, I can so understand your frustration with that situation. However, I think we've already covered stuff which would help in that situation, by calling attention to otherwise-reliable sources being inaccurate, and the links to how to deal with conflicting sources, inaccuracy, and so on. I can really feel for your frustration here, I really can, and this situation has obviously been very upsetting for you (and yes, I can see why it has). But I do think we now have (in amongst various drafts) pointers as to how to deal with this kind of thing. If you can think of any other page or essay which could be linked to which would be better than the ones we have, or could sensibly be added to them, then please point us to it! Pesky (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC) @Stradivariu Actually that is NOT the point I was raising with the "All or nothing" point above. I said "instead of debating if one part of a source is reliable you have the whole thing being judged" In other words instead of arguing if Knight's statement in a ABC-CLIO book meets Verifiability you wind up arguing if the book as a whole meets Verifiability. Something similar to this happened in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F with regard to Stephen Barrett as a source on Weston Price and sadly he is STILL being used in that article. Ugh. As for a way to fix this mess the lead needs to pound into the heads of editors that Verifiability does NOT stand on it own but works in conjunction with other polities like WP:NPOV and WP:Weight with references to WP:inaccuracy and Wikipedia:NOTOR essays to help clarify things.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC) I think we already have that, and it's generally relatively easy (unless you're dealing with someone with a competence issue, to point them to that bit about the policies working in conjunction with each other, also the other essays on how to deal with source-conflicts, etc. Pesky (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Clear-cut inaccuracy Sometimes WP editors who examine a range of sources about a topic can agree that a particular published source has made a clear-cut error about a point of fact. For instance, the famous headline Dewey defeats Truman is appropriately described as an "inaccurate". If you feel that verifiable information is inaccurate, it is usually best not to remove it until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal has been established. Discussion needs to focus on source reliability and due weight, rather than on the personal views of Wikipedia editors. Keep in mind that rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely. Group 3, Drafts 17, 18, etc.) Pesky (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC) As other editors have noted that "If you feel that verifiable information is inaccurate, it is usually best not to remove it until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal has been established." has MAJOR problems mainly in that it ignores WP:BURDEN which states quite clearly The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.(sic) Per WP:BURDEN is NOT the editor who believes the verifiable information is inaccurate who must prove his case but the editor(s) who put in-want to keep the inaccurate information. This proves just how poorly WP:V ties into other policies.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Not quite... the burden is not to "prove" that the information is accurate... the burden is to demonstrate that the information is verifiable. Debates over accuracy are more of an UNDUE WEIGHT issue than a verifiability issue, and in discussions over weight, there is an equal burden on both sides make their case for inclusion/exclusion. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Ah but here is the rub. In Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F part of my line of reasoning was because it could be demonstrated (via Weston Price's own words) what Stephen Barrett said about Weston Price was inaccurate Stephen Barrett did not meet Verifiability criteria. Which brings us to the real crux of the matter--what role (if any) does accuracy play in determining Verifiability?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC) My answer: Accuracy does not play a direct role in determining Verifiability... but it can play an indirect role: Accuracy is one of several factors we consider when determining reliability ... and reliability has a role in determining Verifiability. Blueboar (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC) I really think that dispute resolution is the best place to go here. Hopefully some fresh pairs of eyes might relive the tension and so on. Let us know when you've put it there, yes? Pesky (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Bruce, I'm guessing that the content dispute that you keep bringing up is the size of a novel, so time does not permit me getting up to speed on it, but my first guess is that once I did I might weigh in on your side of it, as you have made many valid arguments. If you care to ping me on my talk page with a suggested short way to learn the situation, I'd be happy to try to learn the situation. But to keep bringing up the particular content dispute at great length here is really out of place here, (please stop) even though it (as does much of Wikipedia) is related to the lead of wp:ver, which IS what this is about. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC) I've collapsed the thread. I don't see this as getting back on topic any time soon, so I'm afraid we can't have this discussion here. I recommend the dispute resolution noticeboard as a good starting point for getting things resolved. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC) References

Are we going about this backwards?

It seems that the key to sorting out the VNT issue is to first sort out the issue of accuracy. I agree that WP:V should address the accuracy/inaccuracy question ... but I think we may be going about it backwards. This mediation is focused on re-writing the lede (specifically, to resolve the debates over VNT). The lede is supposed to be a brief summary of points that are discussed in more detail in various sections of the main body of the policy. However, at the moment, the issue of accuracy isn't discussed in the main body of the policy... which means that we are trying to come up with a summary of something that isn't there. No wonder we can't agree on language.

I am beginning to think it would make more sense to shift gears... before we discuss how to summarize the accuracy question in the lede, we should have have something to summarize. This would mean we should first collaborate on a (new) section for the main body of the policy ... and then try to come up with a summary of that section for the lede. Once we know what we are summarizing, the language of that summary should (hopefully) be a lot less contentious. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think the discussion has definitely been moving in this direction of late. I would not mind, say, having two RfCs - the first one on an accuracy section, and the second one on the lede - and basing the latter on the results of the former. I think doing things this way might work better than trying to cram everything into one big RfC. The question of whether to have more than one RfC is actually one that I was going to ask when we got to step seven. If we need to decide this before we finish the drafts, though, then maybe there is a need to change the mediation structure. What do you all think? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the topic of accuracy is IMMENSELY important and IMMENSELY complex, to the point where it could use a new pillar policy to address it. And startign it as a paragraph in wp:ver is probably the best realistic way to get rolling on it. BUT.....from a logic standpoint, the simplest / a basic answer is to simply have wp:ver start to DO NO HARM regarding this and leaving it to the other human, consensus, policy and guideline mechanisms to handle it. For example, in discussions and RFC's, editors would tend to naturally take out erroneous material (when it is not required by wp:npov) except miscreants can impair or block such efforts via their mis-representations of wp:ver. There's only one sentence in wp:ver that does harm with respect to this (VNT, actually just 2-3 words in VNT.) so by addressing the VNT problem we ARE implementing a "phase 1" solution regarding accuracy. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

See Group 3, Draft 21 (et al.) which is covering this with a proposed extra section :o) Pesky (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a nice section (or at least the beginning of one... I can think of a few things that should be added). That said, one thing I learned from the previous large RFC is that it is a really bad idea to combine too many changes into one proposal. Proposing a change to the lede and proposing an addition of a new section (at the same time) confuses the issue - Someone can support part of the proposal and not the other... but that distinction gets lost when "tallying up" the !votes, and the comment is counted as if it were an "oppose" for the entire thing.

I suppose what I am proposing is that we break the process up into two parts... Part I: Pause our efforts to perfect the lede and deal with VNT, and first work on a new section to deal with accuracy/inaccuracy... Part II: then come back to our drafts of the lede, and work on them with this new section in mind. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd support Blueboar's ideas above: accuracy section first, then I think the lead could be deicide on more quickly and easily. Right now its rather torturous.(olive (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

• I have four points to make here. First, I'm not actually sure that it would be necessary to have a full RFC to introduce a new section. We could draft it, suggest it on the talk page, and see if it's controversial first. I suggest not having too many RFCs in quick succession, partly because RFCs are expensive in our most precious resource, which is editor time, and partly because editors can start to oppose change through sheer RFC-fatigue.

  Second, I think North8000's idea of a new policy is premature; if this does need to be a separate policy, then it needs to go through the essay and guideline stages first in order to refine it and ensure that there's genuine consensus support. We can't just grow a new policy by budding it off an existing one. But I think this falls short of a new policy. It's a consequence of WP:V, WP:NOR, and common sense.

  Third, we have strong precedent for dealing with falsehoods by simply deleting them even when there are sources: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argusto Emfazie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baldock Beer Disaster on an entry which actually made it into DYK (diff) , "glucojasinogen" (first introduced as a hoax into our article on diabetic neuropathy here, persisted for over four years and went on to appear in academic sources here and here, now deleted for being false even though sourced), and so on. In fairness there are also counterexamples that went the other way, such as Edward Owens (hoax), but I would like to distinguish those from the other cases because with Edward Owens there are sources to discuss it as a hoax. This is all meant to emphasize that if we stick to documenting the custom and practice that Wikipedia clearly already observes, then a paragraph on accuracy does not necessarily need a separate RFC.

  Fourth and finally, there is a different way in which we really are going about this backwards. I'm increasingly convinced that we're overthinking and overcomplexifying the RFC. What we're in the process of devising is a massively structured Request For Votes, and that's absolutely the wrong approach. RFCs are supposed to invite editors to contribute their ideas and a steer on the general direction in which we should take the policy. Once we've received that steer, then we as a group are more than capable of making minor editorial decisions about the exact phrasing to use. We're looking for instructions like, "Add a paragraph on accuracy and keep VNT", or else, "Find a way to rephrase VNT and put the accuracy business into a separate guideline". Surely we're not looking for a 300-editor consensus on where to put each comma and full stop.—S Marshall T/C 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of creating a WP:Accuracy pillar (and it is not like we would be starting from scratch as we have WP:inaccuracy as the basis) though I must agree with S Marshall in that we are [Rube Goldberg machine|Rube Goldberging] this. What should have been a relatively simple possess has become an insanely complicated, gone on WAY too long, way too many RfCs mess.

Extended content

I must say given what when on with Talk:Conspiracy_theory/Archive_15#The_first_recorded_use_of_the_phrase_.22conspiracy_theory.22_dates_from_1909.3F_WRONG.21, how many people reported similar things in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence/Archive_1#Verifiability_Fact_vs_Truth and some of the outright INSANE arguments presentedWikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence#The_REAL_problem_with_.22not_truth.22_.28Verifiability_vs_belief.29 the consequence of WP:V, WP:NOR, and common sense does NOT seem to occur with many editors. I mean instead of a NPOV talk on how to deal with the clear factual error with Knight many of the editors produced what can only best described as total insanity: 1. "This is another one of those instances in which "verifiability, not truth" is what matters for Wikipedia. It can be verified that the author claims that the first recorded use was from 1909, whether or not his claim is accurate." (which basically reads it doesn't matter that it can be verified in any source that the phase was used before 1909 because the earlier sources are textbook examples of "verifiability, not truth" and we don't care these earlier sources PROVE the later source is demonstrably inaccurate.) 2. "Looking for sources using the phrase "conspiracy theory" is indisputably original research," (How do you find sources meeting Verifiability if simply looking for them is OR?) 3. "Literally speaking, citing early uses of the phrase is OR, until someone else publishes the claim that the phrase goes back that far." (Phiwum) (DOES ANYONE ACTUALLY READ WHAT WP:OR SAYS?!? It says "the term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." If I can cite a reliable, published source then that source EXIST and per the definition of WP:OR there is no sane way it can be called OR) 4 "An editor here proving Knight wrong by researching primary texts which are not about conspiracy theories, but which happen to use the phrase, would be a pretty clear violation of NOR." (citing source that meets Verifiability showing the later source is inaccurate is OR... on the talk page...Huh?) 5 "User BruceGrubb is for example arguing that we have to remove a statement by a recognized professional making a claim about the first usage of the word, because he himself has found an earlier usage. I say if the statement is significant we include it attributed to its source, regardless of whether BruceGrubb's or another editors original research suggest that the statement may be factually incorrect."

These and many other example that sprung out of that whole thing show that some editors either lack understanding of what OR actually is or wouldn't know common sense if it walked up to them and shook their freaking hand.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe we could decide what we're going to do before we get into another long discussion? :O) I wouldn't mind going ahead with a draft on accuracy for the body of the policy first rather than another RfC just in case that works.(olive (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC))

As I said we already have the guts for such a draft in WP:inaccuracy:

begin (Verifiable material may or may not be accurate)

Editors sometimes think that verifiable material should be accurate, but verifiable material may or may not be accurate. A famous example of verifiable material that is inaccurate is the front page of the Chicago Tribune on November 3, 1948—we have an article about this headline at Dewey defeats Truman. In this case, we have a retraction from the newspaper which provides strong evidence that the material was inaccurate. But many published errors have not resulted in retractions.

As Carl Sagan pointed out in his The Demon-Haunted world experts can be wrong or not even experts in the field in question.(Sagan, Carl (1995) The Demon-Haunted world ISBN 0-394-53512-X pg 212-216) This means using the fact that a source is verifiable to say it is accurate is the argument from authority fallacy.

end (Verifiable material may or may not be accurate) And we even have a Verifiability reference in the thing!--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to put mediation on hold

Blueboar's idea seems to have good initial support, so let me propose a specific way of implementing it. How about this: we put the mediation on hold, and work on an accuracy section at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. We draft and discuss the accuracy section until we reach a natural conclusion, whether that is rejecting such a section at the discussion phase, or whether we get a specific result at an RfC. When the discussion about the accuracy section has finished, we then reopen the mediation and discuss how to proceed with redrafting the lede. Please let me know if you support this, or whether you would like to do things a different way. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar that the accuracy/inaccuracy question is key. It reminds me of the old saying about grasping nettles -- the idea being that they are more likely to sting you if you are overly cautious with them. There are strongly held concerns involved: people keen to remove inaccurate material, and others determined to defend sourced and relevant material against tendentious deleting. I am worried that an unmediated discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability may generate more heat than light. Rather than putting the mediation on hold, I think it might be better to revise the agenda of the mediation, to include a section dedicated to this question. In short, Mr Stradivarius, I think we still need you. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 01:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

When and if the accuracy section is added to WP:V is unknown. This mediation process shouldn't be held up for it. The two tasks can be done in parallel. I suggest editors here work on a lead for the policy that presently exists in WP:V, not for changes to the policy that may or may not be accepted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that Blueboar's idea is an excellent but Herculean task. But even if we go full speed ahead on THIS mediation, THIS mediation will take a month or two. Putting it on hold while we tackle Blueboar's idea would probably push that out to 6 months. Do we really want that? Plus, I don't think that most folks will understand this, but from a structural / logic standpoint, even just explaining VNT ( as the proposal from Group 2 does) will help the "accuracy" topic greatly. North8000 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I like Strad's idea of a brief discussion on WT:V about putting in the extra section on clear-cut inaccuracy. Ther's a good chance it may get little (or no) opposition. What's not to like about it? What harm could it do? What's wrong with a section like that? If we focus trashing addressing any opposition with questions like that (and no, "instruction creep" is not a valid reason for opposition, in my view, when dealing with something like this, which clearly has caused / does cause angst), then it should slide smoothly into the current policy. We don;t need an RfC for every darned little change ... I discussed various changes and additions on the talk page of WP:CIV, and was able to run a load of stuff straight in without much hassle. Pesky (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The new section in Group 3 Draft 21 should explain why we aren't going to want an accuracy guideline in WP:V.  WP:Inaccuracy was never purposed to be a policy.  I think that we should move forward somehow with Group 3 Draft 20, it solves the WP:V VnT problem without complication and without stifling development of guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

North, what is so Herculean about saying something about accuracy/inaccuracy in the body text of WP:V? We in Group 3 have already drafted a short section, based on a suggestion by Blueboar. Blueboar said on this talk page that he thinks more could be added to that draft, and this is probably true... I really think it is a more difficult to task to compose an intro which includes a sentence or two mentioning accuracy/inaccuracy when the body does not. If you do that, you inevitably raise questions which you don't have space to answer in an intro, even though the answers may be simple enough. This is the problem I see with the current Group 2 draft, which does mention accuracy/inaccuracy in the 1st paragraph and in footnote 4.

Pesky, obviously you and I agree that a new section about inaccuracy is a good idea. Still, I think it is going to be challenging to some people -- I mean people who have read VNT as meaning that having a verifiable RS is always enough. I hope that our wording will help people see that mentioning the inaccuracy question is not just a pretext for tendentious deleting. Still, I think people are more likely to accept it if it does go to an RfC first. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If editors here want an accuracy section added to WP:V, why not simply go there now and work on it? --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just that the questions of the lede and the body are related. A lot of drafts ledes in this mediation already mention accuracy/inaccuracy. But as Blueboar pointed out, the lede should summarize the body, which in the current locked version does not mention accuracy/inaccuracy at all. So... Should accuracy/inaccuracy be mentioned in the lede, the body, both or neither? If mentioned at all, should it be mentioned only to say it is outside the scope of this policy, or should something more substantial be said? Are these questions to be resolved via RfC or some other way? Can we go forward in this mediation without discussing questions like these? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I don't yet see why it's necessary to put the mediation on hold while we work on this. I do think the mediation has foundered and is now wading hip-deep in drafts and questions of detail at a micro-level; it needs to get back to its basic purpose of formulating a RFC. I suggest that the mediation proceeds to consider the broad parameters of the RFC (e.g. how many words are we allowing for questions to be put to the community? 100? 150? I urge you all not to exceed 200!) In the meantime we can also work at WT:V on the accuracy question, which I see as an entirely separate matter the questions I think we should discuss at mediation.—S Marshall T/C 07:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that considering broad parameters for an RFC, like how many words for questions, is a good idea. I don't see being "hip-deep in drafts" as necessarily a bad thing. Each draft is an experiment to find a better wording for the policy. Regarding how to deal with the accuracy/inaccuracy question, let's first look at what we have right now in some of the most recent drafts:

• Group 2 Draft 9 mentions inaccurate material in the 2nd sentence, and also has a two-sentence footnote (footnote 4) about how to respond to it.
• Group 3 Draft 20 proposes a minimalist body section that redirects people to a number of other pages about inaccuracy.
• Group 3 Draft 21 contains two shortish paragraphs under the heading "Clear-cut inaccuracy".
• We also have a draft wording for a section on inaccuracy by Bruce Grubb right here on this talk page.

If we are now going to shift discussion about accuracy/inaccuracy to the WP:V talk page, are we supposed to discuss all four of the above ideas there? And say nothing more about them here? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important from the Aspie/Autie point of view to have something on the WP:V page covering clear-cut inaccuracies, as the lack of clear pointers within the policy is something which A-spectrum people are likely to "hiccup" on. Pesky (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've noticed a few people saying that there might be able to put an accuracy section into WP:V without having an RfC. It's true that we don't need an RfC for every little change, but I don't think adding a section counts as a little change. As Kalidasa said above, such a section might be a hard sell for some editors, though it might seem like common sense to others. We really would need to advertise such a discussion to the community to find out if it had a good, solid consensus, so I think we need to take that into account when working out what to do here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's not over plan this. Work up an initial proposal for the proposed new section, post it at the WT:Verifiability talk page... and discuss it. What happens after that will depend on how that discussion goes. It may be that a clear consensus emerges from the discussion... it may be that we will need an RFC to give us even wider input. Don't assume acceptance or rejection before it occurs. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly one way or the other about this. To some extent, I think that putting the original mediation process on hold could put efforts to revise the lead at risk, if for no reason other than the loss of time noted by other editors above. On the other hand, I'd like to see what might come out of this writing of a new section, because it could be very good. But I think we should decide whether the drafting of the section should be part of this mediation process, in which case we should probably create a mediation subpage for the purpose of drafting it, or whether it should be separate from the mediation process, in which case it should be drafted at WT:V and not here. In either case, we shouldn't be drafting it on this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Something just occurred to me, though. I can easily imagine those editors who opposed the change that was proposed in the last RfC looking at a proposal for the new section, and saying "this is just the first step in getting VnT out of the lead – oppose!". That might actually cause the proposal for the new section to stall, and then stall the efforts here for a new lead. We need to give careful thought (ie, not just wishful thinking) to how to prevent that scenario from happening, and that might point towards not suspending the work on the lead after all. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well... one sure way to ease the fears of the "this is just the first step" knee-jerkers would be if SMarshal and North agreed to express initial opposition to it (saying that they think the addition will make it harder for VNT to be removed). After all... if they hate it it must be worth considering... right? OK... perhaps not...

That was said in jest... However, there is a serious point under that jest... sad to say, there are some of us who will inspire a bad faith knee-jerk reaction if we propose this (I would include myself as one of them.) So... the proposal does need to be presented by someone who has not been heavily involved in the previous VNT debates (or someone who has been involved, but is identified with the KEEP viewpoint). And the "usual suspects" (like me) need to hold back on commenting, so we don't poison the well by our very presence. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Two observations in reply to that. First, I see some new drafts below that are titled and focused on "accuracy" instead of VnT. I actually think that that approach is very helpful in dispelling the misperception that the proposal would be a Trojan Horse about VnT. The other observation is about getting a non-"usual suspect" to present the proposal. That will only work if they agree to be actively involved in the drafting of the proposal from the start, which suggests that reach-out needs to happen asap. No one would want to be a "front" for other people's proposals, and no one else would, as it were, fall for it, if it happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed text for Accuracy section

Proposed drafts and discussion about an "accuracy" section

-----Begin proposed text----- Verifiability, not truth Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth That we require verifiability, rather than truth, as the threshold for inclusion does not mean that Wikipedia has no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect the facts. Wikipedia's articles are intended as an overview of the relevant literature within the field in question, a summary of current published debate. The Neutral point of view policy, another core content policy, holds that all majority and significant-minority published views be represented in articles. But sources are not infallible. They may make simple errors, or be outdated or superseded. Editorial judgment is required to decide how to use the best sources in the best way. When there is agreement among editors that an otherwise reliable source has made an unambiguous error, simply ignore that material, and when in doubt discuss on the article talk page, or on the reliable sources noticeboard. The concept of "verifiability, not truth" does not mean that anything published by a reliable source, no matter how mistaken, must be included in Wikipedia. -----End proposed text----- NOTE: I take no credit for the proposed wording. This was a suggested compromise from months ago. I remembered it as being particularly good, never forgot about it, and I would like to re-suggest it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Here's the useful part from the above. The rest is a digression. "Sources are not infallible. They may make simple errors, or be outdated or superseded. Editorial judgment is required to decide how to use the best sources in the best way. When there is agreement among editors that an otherwise reliable source has made an unambiguous error, simply ignore that material, and when in doubt discuss on the article talk page, or on the reliable sources noticeboard." --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC) The above looks good. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Taking the above suggestions, and working them into the material suggested at Group 3 draft 21... Please consider the following: Accuracy The fact that material is verifiable does not necessarily mean that it is accurate. Sources are not infallible. Even very reliable sources may contain simple errors, or be outdated or superseded on a specific point. Editorial judgment is required to decide how to use the best sources in the best way. If you are deciding whether to add new information to an article, and you think a source contains an error, simply ignore what the source says and rely on other sources instead. If you are deciding whether to remove what you think is inaccurate information from an article, best practice is to not remove it from the article until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal or retention has been established. Such discussion needs to focus on source reliability and due weight, rather than on the personal views of Wikipedia editors. Keep in mind that our WP:Neutral point of view policy may require that the information be retained, because it represents a significant viewpoint. In such cases, rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely (and discussing how we can neutrally present information is often more productive than asking whether we should keep or delete it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC) I think the text in the box is well worded and strikes a good balance. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC) I have tweaked it since you posted... I hope you still like it. Blueboar (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC) I think putting Dewey defeats Truman in there would stike the point home hard. It's supposed to be a reliable source – mainstream media, and so on – but so clearly so wholly wrong! One shining, outstanding example like that can drive the point (of the ridiculousness of putting something like that in just because it's "verifiable") can home so hard, to the extent where all editors with two brain cells to rub together can see why the section's recommended. Pesky (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I do still like it, Blueboar. I think your recent tweaks are good. A couple of further tweaks I think might make it even better -- one is that I agree with Pesky about mentioning "Dewey defeats Truman", it's a very instructive example as well as a source of comic relief. Another thing is the sentence about "editorial judgment" is a little vague -- using "best sources" in the "best way" sounds fine, but does it mean singling out one or two texts as "best", and then treating them like fundies treat the Old and New Testaments, or does it mean looking at a range of source material without relying on any single text too much? I also think the 2nd par could use a slight tweak.. What do you think of the version below? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Accuracy The fact that material is verifiable does not necessarily mean that it is accurate. Sources are not infallible. Even very reliable sources may contain simple errors (like the famous headline Dewey defeats Truman), or may be outdated or superseded on a specific point. Editorial judgment, based on willingness to consider a variety of sources, is needed to decide what material to use and how to present it. If you are deciding whether to add new information to an article, and you think a source contains an error, you may simply ignore what the source says and rely on other sources instead. If you are deciding whether to remove what you think is inaccurate information from an article, best practice is to not remove it from the article until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal or retention has been established. Such discussion needs to focus on source reliability and due weight, rather than on the personal views of Wikipedia editors. Keep in mind that our WP:Neutral point of view policy may require that the information be retained, because it represents a significant viewpoint. In such cases, rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely (and discussing how we can neutrally present information is often more productive than asking whether we should keep or delete it). Kalidasa 777 (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC) That works for me... what do others think? Is this a good beginning? Something we could propose at the WP:V talk page for wider discussion (leading to further tweaks), and (hopefully) eventual implementation? Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I don't think that "due weight" is very applicable and also use of it and link to it steers these situations into a morass. But getting this perfect and generalized would be that Herculean task that I referred to. So it's also fine with me as-is. North8000 (talk) 12:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC) We are going to have to agree to disagree on due weight (I think it extremely applicable)... but I am glad you agree that we are not trying for "perfect" at this point... right now, we are trying for "good enough", and "no major objections". Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC) It seems bloated. --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC) You can definitely count me amongst the no major objection group. In fact, I really like all of the versions that are being discussed here. Just in the spirit of sharing ideas about it (but still with my concerns, stated above, that we should either (a) have a dedicated subpage of the mediation for drafting these, or (b) instead move the process out of the mediation and onto WT:V!), here is a variation, made mainly by trying to combine what I think may be the best parts of the other drafts above: Accuracy The fact that material is verifiable does not necessarily mean that it is accurate. Sources are not infallible. Even very reliable sources may contain simple errors (like the famous headline Dewey defeats Truman), or may be outdated or superseded on a specific point. Editorial judgment, based on willingness to consider a variety of sources, is needed to decide what material to use and how to present it. That we require verifiability, rather than truth, as the threshold for inclusion does not mean that Wikipedia has no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean that the court does not respect the facts. If you are deciding whether to add new information to an article, but you think, based on other sources, that a source contains an error, you may choose to rely on those other sources instead. If you are deciding whether to remove what you think is inaccurate information from an article, best practice is often not to remove it from the article until the issue has been fully discussed on the talk page and a consensus for removal or retention has been established. Such discussion needs to address source reliability and due weight, rather than to rely on the personal views of Wikipedia editors. Keep in mind that our neutral point of view policy may require that the information be retained, because it represents a significant viewpoint. In such cases, rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely (and discussing how we can neutrally present information is often more productive than asking whether we should keep or delete it). I also tweaked some of the wording, with attention to the concerns that have been raised above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC) That's fine... But before we all get too deeply into making and discussing tweaks, let's focus on the big picture... does anyone have MAJOR objections to where we are headed (as a concept)... as opposed to simply having ideas on how to tweak it and make it better? If not, I would suggest we post it at the WP:V talk page for consideration and discussion (we can continue to tweak it there). Given that I was the one to propose the last major proposal (the large RFC), I am reluctant to propose this one. Is there someone who would be willing to take the lead and post the proposal? Blueboar (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I'd say that the big picture is that the only sentence needed in the policy is the one that says, "The fact that material is verifiable does not necessarily mean that it is accurate."  Why do we need to say more than the one sentence on the policy page?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Because the obvious question that editors will ask on reading that sentence is: "So, what do we do when the material is verifiable and inaccurate?" We need to answer that question (and, unfortunately, the answer to that question is a very complex... "well... it depends"). Blueboar (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC) So all questions that are asked about WP:V should have answers in the WP:V policy?  No, that is not a sufficient explanation.  What about using the guideline WP:IRS?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Come on Blueboar, if a source is clearly inaccurate then an editor should be able to find Verifiable sources to prove their point; I don't see how "the answer to that question is a very complex" If anything Chick_Publications#Anti-evolution shows that the answer is very simple--document the conflict in the article per WP:NOTOR using WP:WEIGHT and move on. WHAT IS SO "COMPLEX" ABOUT THAT?! (Sorry but after OVER EIGHT MONTHS of this kind of nonsense and seemingly endless RfCs on this issue my patience is wearing thin)--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)Re "does anyone have MAJOR objections to where we are headed (as a concept)... as opposed to simply having ideas on how to tweak it and make it better?" — I have major objections. It's too much. I said this before. The excerpt from A Quest For Knowledge's version of 16:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC) that I gave in my message of 16:27, 20 April 2012, is more along the lines of what is better. Avoid TLDR. Use links to guidelines, essays, etc, for the extra non-essential material. (BTW, on the other extreme, Unscintillating's single sentence doesn't work.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC) But the material in the post of 16:27 appears to overlap with WP:IRS.  See WP:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I understand your point Bob K31416. However, TLDR IMHO is the worst reason to keep something out--it comes off as "I'm too lazy to actually pay...ooo shiny". Ironically the WP:TLDR essay warns "As a label, it is sometimes used as a tactic to thwart the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing."--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC) I think we need to strike a balance between TLDR and what I would call ITSUQS. Which of course means: "It's too short -- unanswered questions." I do think we need more than a sentence or two. I'm not sure that the 1st par of a section about accuracy needs a comparison with courtroom rules of evidence. I think the third paragraph could also be shorter than in recent drafts. How is this? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Accuracy The fact that material is verifiable does not necessarily mean that it is accurate. Sources are not infallible. Even very reliable sources may contain simple errors (like the famous headline Dewey defeats Truman), or may be outdated or superseded on a specific point. Editorial judgment, based on willingness to consider a variety of sources, is needed to decide what material to use and how to present it. If you are deciding whether to add new information to an article, but you think, based on other sources, that a source contains an error, you may choose to rely on those other sources instead. If you find sourced information that you think is inaccurate in an article, it is usually best to discuss the issue on the talk page until a consensus for removal, rewording, or retention has been established. Such discussion needs to address source reliability, neutral point of view, and due weight, rather than rely on the personal views of Wikipedia editors. Rewriting how the material is presented is often a better choice than removing it entirely. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC) A quick comment: I would suggest moving "(like the famous headline Dewey defeats Truman)" to a footnote. I think you're on the right track. I'll look at it some more. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict)I started with Kalidasa 777's version and came up with the following. Accuracy Reliable sources are usually correct but not always. Sometimes they may be outdated or superseded on a specific point by other reliable sources. At other times they may contain errors that are obvious to all the editors involved. If the accuracy of sourced material is questionable, a consensus of editors can decide whether or not to include it in an article. In reaching a consensus, editors should consider source reliability, neutral point of view, and due weight where appropriate. Rewriting how the material is presented is sometimes a better choice than removing it entirely. I got the four links at the end from Kalidasa 777's version. The first one is policy, the second one seems to be nearly at the policy level with regard to reliability, whereas the last two are essays which I'm not sure about. BLP considerations may need to be added since the bar is lower for removing questionable BLP sourced material. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC) I copied my last message over to the section that Kalidasa started at WT:V. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal at WP:V talk page

In the last few days, a number of people here, including Strad and Blueboar and Bob, have suggested moving this discussion to the WP:V talk page. Blueboar asked for a volunteer. OK. I've just run up the flag there. Now let's see if anyone salutes... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Re:

If you are deciding whether to add new information to an article, but you think, based on other sources, that a source contains an error, you may choose to rely on those other sources instead.

• This has the problem that not all errors in published reliable sources are discussed in published reliables sources.  The key word we should be using is "evidence", not "sources".  As stated at WP:Inaccuracy#Approaches to reporting potentially inaccurate material, "As with other editorial decisions, editors must consider the forms of evidence that are available."  For example, the personal experience of editors, as reported at WP:Inaccuracy#Appendix: Reliability in the context for the case in Oslo, constitutes evidence.
• It is also misleading because it leaves the impression that inaccuracy is a reason to exclude material from the encyclopedia.  Inaccurate material may or may not have due-weight prominence, and we have the example Dewey defeats Truman as a case in which we report inaccurate material.

Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've collapsed the drafts subsection above, as the actual drafting of an accuracy section probably shouldn't be done on this page, wherever we choose to do it in the end. I personally wouldn't mind whether it is part of the mediation or is done separately on WT:V. Now that we have started a discussion on this on WT:V and started to get some feedback, though, I think it would make sense to continue discussing it over there. If anyone feels strongly that it should be a mediated discussion, though, we can consider making a new work group for it. From the comments on this talk page so far, it also looks like people would like to continue with this mediation while the discussions on the accuracy section are underway. While we can't foresee the outcome of those discussions, we should still be able to make useful progress here without knowing their outcome. For example, work group three could consider different versions of the lede, based on the presence or absence of an accuracy section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

True belief in WP:V

I mentioned a concept above but didn't sufficiently identify it.

True belief in WP:V is in general the belief that truth comes only from reliable sources.  More specifically, as per WP:V, truth is not a consideration for inclusion or exclusion of material.  Here is a theoretical basis, as stated at WT:V/First on 4 October 2011:

• Definition 3b for threshold at www.merriam-webster.com is, "a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not."

So introduction of the word "threshold" comes with an above and a below state, or an inclusion and an exclusion state. Using [Vesal's] proposition structure, this adds two more propositions, propositions for exclusion:

• the threshold for inclusion is where verifiability is true
• the threshold for inclusion is not where the state of truth is true

• the threshold for exclusion is where verifiability is not true
• the threshold for exclusion is not where the state of truth is not true

This last says that editors cannot exclude material just for being not true, just like they cannot include material just for being true. Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why I vastly prefer "A fundamental requirement for inclusion" over "The threshold for inclusion". Pesky (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Rationale" of the October 2011 RfC, Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53, states,

Conclusions: The goal of this proposal is not to change the meaning of the policy, but to clarify it and reduce the potential for real or feigned misunderstanding. The concepts behind the phrase "Verifiability, not truth" should remain part of the policy. But they are complex concepts that need to be better explained.

Regentspark reasonably notes in the closing, "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."  For the true belief in WP:V, this was a policy change, and in retrospect it seems to have weakened the proposal to present it as less than a policy change.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Believed truth vs Verifiability "truth"

Extended content

This is starting to go off the rails again. The problem with VnT is not so much editors put in "truth" they believe is true but that since a Verifiability source says something it must be true and anything that contradicts that view is WP:OR. When I presented how conflict between Schweitzer and Sir James George Frazer had been resolved in the Jesus myth theory: Despite Sir James George Frazer stating "My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth" in volume 9 of The golden bough in 1913, [22] Schweitzer continued to group him with John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, and Arthur Drews in subsequent printings of his The Quest of the Historical Jesus and repeated this classification in his 1931 autobiography Out of My Life and Thought with the statement "I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus." [23][24] (22) Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412 (23) Schweitzer (1931) Out of My Life and Thought page 125 (24) Bennett, Clinton (2001) In search of Jesus: insider and outsider images page 205 one editor flew off the rails claiming 'yes this is OR via SYN' even though the conflict itself was referenced (Bennett) Let me repeat that; even though there was a source meeting Verifiability confirming the conflict the editor was STILL claiming OR. The following produced a nice spit in the community with roughly half saying it was fine with the other half that it was WP:SYN: "Peter Knight states "The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates from 1909" (ref); however, the phrase "conspiracy theory" also appears in Garrison, George Pierce (1906) Westward extension, 1841-1850 Edited by Albert Bushnell Hart LLD Professor in history in Harvard University pg 31(ref) and The American: a national journal: Volumes 19-20 May 10, 1890 Page 67(ref)" None of the polices really address WHAT to do or HOW to handle source conflict or inaccuracy and so editors are left flaying around with Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard when in reality neither applies. If these are not the domain of WP:V then the policy should say so and direct the editors to what policy or essay IS relevant. I must say that I am sad to see that the directly and expressly qualifier got removed from WP:V (when did THAT happen?) as it was great help in addressing editors reading things into sources that simple weren't there. (A WP:SYN of the mind if you will)--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Bruce, I'm not sure what you mean by this "going off the rails", here. Do you mean that the mediation is going off the rails? Or what? I think we're working (gradually) towards things which will address all the concerns, one way or another. I've said (above) that for Autism-spectrum editors it may well be very important to have something addressing clear-cut inaccuracies on the policy page, and hopefully we can work on that. I like the idea of covering it in a footnote (per Group 3 draft 21) as then editors can be pointed to it, or it's easy to copy the footnote and paste it into the relevant discussion. I think the pointers to other pages suggested in the footnote are good; but I also like the idea of having a separate section dealing with clear-cut inaccuracies in otherwise-reliable sources. I know this whole thing is very frustrating for you, but we are working on it. These things take time. Pesky (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC) Re Bruce's comment: "None of the polices really address WHAT to do or HOW to handle source conflict or inaccuracy" Not quite... NPOV does discuss what to do and how to handle source conflict. What is needed is a policy statement re: source inaccuracy. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC) The fact the Knight example split the community right down the middle shows that NPOV doens't serve this function--if it did everyone would have been in agreement and would have point to the relevant section of the policy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC) The problem with the Knight example is that it compares apples and oranges... NPOV says that if two sources disagree we should present them both with neutrality and due weight. However, there is an unstated assumption in that... in order to do present conflicting information neutrally, both sources need to be of a similar type... if both are secondary sources that reach conflicting conclusions, we can neutrally present both conclusions, saying who believes what... if both are primary sources presenting conflicting facts, we can neutrally present both facts, stating which source says what. In the Knight example, however, we are trying to contrast a conclusion with a fact. Apples and Oranges. We have a secondary source stating a conclusion (that the term was first used in year X) which conflicts with a fact (that there is a source using the term from an earlier date) discovered by examining primary source material ... this ends up being a "correction" of the secondary source, and not a neutral contrasting of two similar types of material. The fact that this fact has never been discussed before, and was first noticed by a Wikipedian raises an NOR question: Is presenting the primary source derived fact to "correct" a secondary source conclusion a form of Original research (unacceptable), or is it a form of "source based research" (acceptable). This is not an easy question to answer, and I am not surprised that it has caused debate. The resolution of such debates depend on examining the specifics of the debate... and those specifics have very subtle nuances that are unique to that specific debate. Each debate will result in its own consensus, and the consensus we reach in one debate may not match the consensus we reach in another (and sometimes we simply won't be able to reach any consensus). Thus, it is not possible to spell out a one-size-fits-all policy statement to deal with these situations. We can spell out how to attempt to resolve the debate (we can say: discuss the situation at the article talk page, examine its unique nuances with an eye to policy, and try to form a consensus), but we can not per-determine the outcome of the debate through policy. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC) How do we know that the sources are in conflict? I don't have access to those books? AQFK (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC) AQFK, you may not have access right this second, but it is possible for you to gain access (or for some one acting on your behalf to gain access). Blueboar (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Well, can you provide a quote from Garrison, George Pierce (1906) or upload a scan of the page? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Not this second, but I am in NYC, and the New York public library apparently has a copy. It would not be overly difficult for me to swing by and request it the next time I am in midtown. (probably within the next few weeks. I actually have some other research I have been putting off, and this gives me an excuse to stop procrastinating). Blueboar (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC) update - I see that a link to a scanned copy has been provided lower down in this thread... I assume it is therefore unnecessary for me to check the copy that is in the NYPL. Blueboar (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC) The WP:NOTOR essay is not much help either because it states "Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources. If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation." The Knight example above compares and contrasts an opinion and a conflicting fact and does NOT explain that discrepancy. Ergo it is NOT OR. The Frazer-Schweitzer example is basically cut from the same cloth. Bennett simply stated there was a conflict not how or why the conflict happened. Perhaps Schweitzer misunderstood Frazer or perhaps he meant 'historical existence of Jesus' in that the Gospels story was historical accurate rather than Jesus existing as a flesh and blood man. That in 1946 it was stated "(John) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one, having contributed something to the Gospel story." and that "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility (that a Jesus existed as a flash and blood man). What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded." points to the first being more likely but we as editors cannot say that because no source states that is what Schweitzer. Much the same is true of Wells' two of whose works that accept the existence of a 1st century Jesus (Jesus Myth and Jesus Legend) have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert M Price, Graham Stanton, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd with only a primary source by Wells to challenge any of them (Eddy-Boyd). Mistake or different definition? We simply don't know. As for Garrison, George Pierce (1906) Westward extension, 1841-1850 ([2]) that was just one of the higher quality sources I had. There is also Rhodes, James Ford (1895; 1900) History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 to the McKinley-Bryan Campaign of 1896 (Volume 8, 1877-1896) with the term "conspiracy theory" appearing FIVE times: [[3]]--as a page title and in the main text on page 273, 274, 278, and as a footnote on page 279. Both clearly before 1909.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Y'know, I have a vague memory of a TV prog. we had here in the UK, where people were specifically looking for earlier uses of words / phrases for that dictionary thing... and the dict. was updated in the next edition. Not that that is necessarily completely relevant. I cannot see anything wrong, however, with putting into the article, as quotes, with dates and refs, what earlier occurrences of the phrase existed. That is not OR. "Mr X, talking about conspiracy theories in 1900, said "Blah, blah, blah" ... Why not just remove the reference to Knight altogether and quote the earlier examples, without saying much about them? Pesky (talk) 03:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC) (edit conflict) Just for the record, the first dispute that BruceGrubb mentions above is a situation where Bruce is doggedly campaigning for all sorts of OR through SYN. Anyone interested in the sad history may go over to Talk:Christ myth theory, or the currently active thread at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Christ_myth_theory. And don't trust me, 'cause I'm the editor who "flew off the rails." Never mind that the sources he cites above aren't actually in conflict, and the importance of the matter is trivial in any case... You should be able to find the Garrison source that BruceGrubb mentions here. The most important sentence is: "The fact, however, which makes the ‘conspiracy’ theory completely illogical is that the political leaders in the slave states were not united in support of the southwestward movement, nor those in the free states against it." I haven't followed the conspiracy theory article enough to understand what's at stake with this reference, but at the very least it's important to note that Garrison puts quotes around "conspiracy"—he's not using conspiracy theory as a phrase in the way that a current writer would. I don't want to derail the discussion here, but I think it's important to note that an experienced editor (that's me) thinks that in one of these disputes, Bruce is wrong on the interpretation both of the sources and also of the policy. I can't say for sure on the second, but my suspicion, from a brief reading of the talk page, is that Bruce is off-base there as well. And I do not think that misunderstanding policies or sources is a good basis on which to propose alterations to one of the encyclopedia's core content policies... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC) I think that regardless of where he put his quotes (and remember that quotes-usage has changed), it seems quite clear that he used the words "conspiracy theory" as a phrase. In its earliest usages, one wouldn't expect the punctuation around it to be necessarily the same as usage today, with either no quotes, or with quotes around both words rather than one. It's not as if the words just happened to be adjacent but were separated by a comma, for example. P.S. I'm also quite an experienced editor! Pesky (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC) It should be noted that as Talk:Christ_myth_theory/definition shows that Akhilleus has pushed for interpretations of source material that even his fellow administrators user:SlimVirgin and User:Elen_of_the_Roads didn't agreed with: "The lead should introduce the theory as defined by academics A and B to say X, Y, and Z. My concern, as I said, is that we've set up a straw man—or we're parroting someone else's straw man—which is why we're able to say this person has changed his mind, or that person didn't ever really subscribe. It would be easy to create articles on versions of philosophical theories so lacking in nuance that no one really agrees with them, and indeed such theories are often invented by opponents precisely so they can do that." SlimVirgin talk contribs 17:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC) "I understand what Dodd is saying, but not your interpretation. He seems clearly to be saying the mythicist approach has two angles, one involving historicity, the other not." SlimVirgin talk contribs 12:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC) "FormerIP, I think that's a very good suggestion. At the very least, the article should separate out those claims that the foundations of Christianity go back into a previous religion (other than its obvious ties to Judaism) from theories that there wasn't one person called Jesus who said all the stuff in the Gospels." Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC) "I've been very slowly trying to read about this topic for the last few months so I can edit this article—and it has been slow because essentially I have little interest in the issue, but somehow got attached to it only after it ended up twice at FAC with some very strong language in it, and so my reading has been ponderous—but what is becoming every day clearer is twofold: (a) this article is a POV fork of Historicity of Jesus; and (b) that the Christ myth theory is that we're not in a position to say that Jesus existed, and we ought to stop being so certain about it. That's it." SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC) "There is no clean boundary between the Christ myth position and other minimalist positions, because they amount to the same thing depending on which words you stress. The search for a clean boundary is fruitless. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC) What Bruce said. This article covers every position from "there never ever was a single human being ever that could in any way have been said to be a guy called Jesus who came from Nazareth" to "OK, so there was this Jewish guy, but he didn't write any of this stuff". Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Akhilleus has ignored the community (he continued to push a "quote" by Michael grant long after it was decided to have no merit as it was actually him quoting two other authors who didn't meet RS) and his fellow administrators; perhaps we should ignore him in return.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC) So there's another 2,700 words on that particular content dispute (what does that make it now, 50,000 words?) put into /flooding the VNT workshop pages. Bruce, I think that I agree with you, but we're getting tired of this. North8000 (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC) It is a logical fallacy to state one's personal opinion as representing more than one person.  IMO, the word "flooding" has little merit, and represents an irrational baseline of perception.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC) IMHO both terms have a solid basis for using them. And no, it is not a logical fallacy, it is an implied assertion where the contained information does not prove or disprove it. North8000 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC) On the other hand, given that multiple people on this page have expressed that they are tired of discussing and re-discussing these two examples, I think we can say that North's comment reflects more than just "one's personal opinion"... Bruce... whether we agree that these two examples demonstrate a flaw with VNT or not, we can respect that you think these two articles are examples of a flaw with VNT ... it is time to take your concerns to the next step. Instead of getting bogged down in explaining and re-explaining the specifics of the examples, think about how you would word the WP:V policy to correct the flaw you perceive. Shift from negative reaction (complaining about the problem) to positive action (trying to fix the problem). Do any of the drafts proposed so far address your concerns... if not, why not write your own? Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC) As OTHER editors pointed in Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/First_sentence/Archive_1#Verifiability_Fact_vs_Truth what I encountered is NOT an isolated incident and those who encounters similar situations said my example was good. Andrew Lancaster's comment shows one possible reason for VnT getting used this way: "the first sentence of WP:V is well known to give a very special jolt of attention, which then draws attention away from the rest of WP:V and the other core content policies." As for suggesting how to deal with this I have been throwing out ideas since 10 September 2011 (UTC): The threshold for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth – whether readers can check that it has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Note: this is not the same as an editor using reliable sources to show a statement being referenced is not factual. (see WP:NOTOR) The threshold for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability--the ability for readers to confirm through a reliable source what is being stated. It is possible for a reliable source to make an incorrect statement but an editor must be able to prove this through other reliable sources that the statement is factually inaccurate; simple belief is not enough. (see WP:NOTOR) Andrew Lancaster provided this version which I felt was a step in the right direction: ==Assertions of truth and untruth== An editor's assertion that something is true is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not matter how convinced you are that some bit of information is true; if the material is unverifiable, do not add it. In this context, Wikipedia requires "verifiability, not truth"'. Assertions of untruth (ie an editor's assertion that some bit of information is untrue) are a more complicated issue. If the dubious information is not supported by a source, it should be challenged; but the question of how to challenge (whether to tag the information as needing a citation or to remove it immediately) depends on the nature of the information (see: WP:Burden, below). If the dubious information is supported by a reliable source, the problem should be discussed on the article talk page, with reference to policy concepts such as maintaining a neutral point of view (and especially the sub-concept of due weight). In many situations, a simple rewording to present the information as an opinion rather than as an accepted fact can resolve issues of verifiable but potentially untrue information. In Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_52#An_old_idea_revisited I dusted off my old idea of creating a chart to visually represent what did and did not fall under WP:V--there was some interest but it didn't really go anywhere. Similarly Slrubenstein's very good observation has been lost: "BruceGrubb provides a perfect example of where V is clear but not entirely practical because its standard is along only one dimension. This hierarchy of reliability may be valid in a generic sense. But one dimension is not sufficient to help people determine what is the best source, and how to use it appropriately." I think editors are MORE tired of something that should be relatively simple to fix being turned into one RfC after another with relatively trivially wording being argued to to the point that the original matter was lost in the shuffle. This has been kicked around since at least August 2011; that is EIGHT MONTHS! And S Marshall stated that certain points I have been raising "got discussed to death by the working group over a period of about eight months" (Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/Archive_53#RFC_-_Compromise_proposal_re_first_sentence) That is a total of SIXTEEN (!) MONTHS--over a year. It is WAY past time to FISH OR CUT BAIT!--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

BruceGrubb - I have already collapsed a couple of the threads in which you debated the "conspiracy theory" case and the "Jesus myth" case. This was to try and keep the discussion focused on the question of how we can improve the lede of WP:V. I can see from this latest exchange, though, that these topics keep coming up, and that these discussions have been generally disconnected from the process of the mediation. I am also concerned about the fact that your comments often use bold face and all-capital letters for emphasis, which is discouraged per WP:SHOUT. To address this, I am going to make a new rule for the mediation: whenever I see a post that mentions the "conspiracy theory" case or the "Jesus myth" case, or uses inappropriate emphasis, I will collapse, archive, or remove it on sight. Feel free to express your concerns in a general way, using calm language and rational argument. As well as being good wikiquette, it is more likely to persuade other editors anyway. Please understand that I am not intending to single you out here - this is the same standard of behaviour that I expect from everyone in the mediation. I suggest that you join in the discussion about the accuracy section on WT:V, as this is exactly the sort of thing you appear to want in the policy. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok then let's stop all the tap dancing and grab the bull by the horns.

Should WP:V itself address source conflict and-or accuracy or are those best handled with blubs redirecting the reader to the relevant policy and-or essay that provides the details?

Given some of the comments I think the second option is more likely as it addresses this whole "complex" issue that keeps coming up. We have WP:V acknowledge that source conflict and accuracy are issues but that they are better handled elsewhere. Then we can hammer out the details in those articles rather then drag this out any more.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer a bit of both... It has become clear to me that WP:V does need to address the issue of accuracy and source conflict... however, since the details are spelled out in other policies, WP:V should do this by briefly summarizing what is said about accuracy and source conflict in other policies and linking to these other policies for the details.

At the moment, the policy clearly states that WP:V works in conjunction with other policies, but I think we also need to explain how it does so. Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboar, but for different reasons. Top of the list is that wp:ver is widely mis-used (and, with VNT is such that it is easily misused) to do harm to the processes that would otherwise work on the topic of accuracy. So a little on accuracy here would reduce the harm. North8000 (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree with the "summarizing" part but the "how does WP:V work in conjunction with policy X" could get really messy fast if we are not careful. I mean we should trust that the average editor here has something between their ears besides a sign saying "space for rent" but then I see articles like WP:IAI and am left wondering "With WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN why does this even need to exist?"--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The emperor's clothes moment. I've always considered "works in conjunction with" to be pablum and a cop out; a way that claim to know a secret place where non-existent policies exist, or a cop-out for policies that are not worded well enough to do their job. Of course the policies reference/link each other, and inevitably interact with each other, and in practice, may overlap on actual situations. But that about it, they cover different areas, as they should, and are not particularly well coordinated with each other much less work in conjunction with each other. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And yet, why can we not agree that WP:V is not the place to explain how to handle inaccuracy?  It is only through the mis-interpretations that WP:V has been seen as saying that truth is not a consideration in Wikipedia.  Truth does have a place in Wikipedia, but not in WP:V.  The problem of policies not coordinated to work well with each other is not improved by adding yet another policy into the mix of policies that need coordination.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. My thought was mostly to keep easily-misinterpreted wp:ver from doing harm in that area. North8000 (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Uh, believed truth has no place in WP:V but factual truth can have everything to do with WP:V--if a source can be demonstrated not to keep its facts straight then it could be argued that that source is not reliable and therefore fails WP:V. As I pointed out before that was one of the arguments against using Stephen Barrett to describe Weston Price (Talk:Weston_Price/Archive_1#Weston_Price_and_Stephen_Barrett_in_their_own_words)--BruceGrubb (talk, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Is_a_paper_.28possible_blog.29_by_a_psychiatrist_valid_regarding_old_claims_regarding_dentistry.3F) 00:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

I'm not tracking you here.  Verifiability is the evidence that someone other than Wikipedia said it first, which says nothing about whether or not the material is factual truth, perceived truth, believed truth, personal experience, or a hoax.  Reliability in the context is covered in WP:IRS, which is a content guideline and not a policy, and specifically identifies material that fails WP:V.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:IRS explains this under Questionable sources: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." If you can show the fact checking of the debated source is effectively nonexistent then logically you have shown possible evidence that the source is questionable and per WP:IRS "Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities."

Per WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source."(sic) If a source is questionable in its fact checking then odds are it is not reliable QED.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If reliable sources exist which show that another apparently-reliable source is demonstrably factually incorrect, the factually incorrect material should be removed.

How's that? In whichever policy it fits best? Like in WP:NOTOR and WP:RS etc. Pesky (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Done

The problem is that two reliable sources can state competing facts... and we don't know which is accurate. Prof. X may say that an earthquake occurred in the morning... while Prof. Y says that it occurred in the afternoon. Which of the two sources shows that the other source is demonstrably factually incorrect? Blueboar (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's where the pointers to the other pages come in handy - those other pages go into more depth about how to treat cases. WP:DUE, and all that, and where other sources prove, themselves, that a different source is wrong about something. Because of dates, times, places, anything else which helps to sort it out. And Prof. X may be just one source for the morning, with maybe four or five equally-qualified sources saying afternoon (or maybe Prof. X had a mental glitch and was thinking in his own time-zone ...). Re-wording is often better than removing, but not in every case. For example, Prof. X saying it was in the morning, but international news video footage proves it was afternoon, etc. Pesky (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is a collaborative, non-battle situation, the editors will work it out. They'll see what the sources say, and yes, the editors may even decide from their own knowledge that one is implausible and decide not to use it. (don't forget, this is about leaving material out, not about putting material in)

If it is a contentious situaiotn, then the rules will get used or misused/misinterpreted as much as possible to keep it in. If the wrong source created an error that is totally off the wall, it's unlikely that any other source addressed it. Editor can use "not truth" to squelch the falsity conversation. Or require a RS to refute it; if the falsehood is really off the wall, no other rs will have addressed it. Whimsical useful example: If a source made an error and said that it rained elephants in Phoenix yesterday, can you find a sources that says "It did not rain elephants in Pheonix yesterday" in order to justify leaving out that statement? I saw a real world one where an otherwise reliable source made statement which implied that Ron Paul (the guy who advocates starting trade with Cuba) is an isolationist (probably meant or should have said non-interventionist). Anti-Ron Paul people liked it in but did NOT claim that it was correct. They wikilawyered using the above two approaches to wear down the folks trying to fix it who then gave up and went away. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

North8000's example above is why we need to make it clear that a Conflict between sources is not automatic evidence of Inaccuracy. This is why I have started suggesting over at WT:V that the new section should be "Accuracy and Source Conflict" not just Accuracy and that both situations be mentioned together.

Take a cited source that states that the Attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on December 8, 1941. Instead of claiming a typo or that the source is "inaccurate" you go to the source to find out what is up and discover that it is was written from Japanese point of view and is actually accurate from that POV.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been wanting to get back to this comment, I really like this example as an example of multiple viewpoints that are not in conflict.  I ran into a corollary at Howland and Baker islands, both Howland and Wake islands were attacked by the Japanese on December 8 local time, but because Wake is West of the International Date Line, Wake was attacked the same day as was Pearl Harbor, while Howland was attacked the following day.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

@Pesky, about your boxed sentence, I would say that we don't remove verifiable inaccurate material because it is inaccurate, we remove it because it is insignificant.  By itself, this would create a 2x2 matrix:

                accurate    inaccurate
prominent       include     include
insignificant   exclude     exclude

In general, I think that the effect of inaccuracy is to reduce the WP:DUE significance of the material.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the kind of thing which needs to go into what North is working on! Beautifully clear and precise, 'specially from the Aspie/Autie ways of understanding. :D North, the elephants in Phoenix could easily be disproven by going to a meterological site and proving what the weather actually was in Phoenix, I'd think. Pesky (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The latter could easily be attacked as OR/Synthesis.  :-) North8000 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I would make it a 2X3 matrix:

                accurate    debated    inaccurate
prominent       include     attribute  attribute
insignificant   exclude     exclude    exclude

This would make it clearer to the reader that prominent but potentially inaccurate information should be included... but how we include it is important... it needs to be phrased as an opinion and not as an accepted fact. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea. It is also what the other processes of Wikipedia would naturally tend to make happen if the mis-interpretability of three words in wp:ver did not do harm. But also spelling it out as a general outline would be good. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

re: three words doing harm... the problem is that a lot of editors (including me) feel that removing those three words would do much greater harm. Some are willing to accept the harm that keeping those words might do in order to prevent the greater harm that removing them definitely would do. Others (like me) would like to prevent harm in both directions.... but that is not easy. Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Re the elephants ant the met. office: I don't see how that could be attacked by any sane person as OR or SYNTH. The met. office records are a pretty darned reliable source for what the weather was like, and given the requirements of due weight, it would have to take priority. That, of course, only works for sensible people ;P Blueboar, I would like to prevent all harm in every direction, but I broke my wand by trying to open a tin of paint with it, and the stuff I used to clean the crystal ball with made the surface go all manky ... I like the 2 x 3 matrix; that's another very clear thing. Pesky (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI I don't keep repeating the "three words" to lobby for their removal (just explaining "not truth" would be enough to satisfy me). I'm saying it more in the context of having a STRUCTURAL discussion. There's an immensely complex system in place for dealing with inaccuracy. An interplay of other policies and guidelines, discussion processes, the natural tendencies of editors, discussions, consensuses. And it works most of the time. And the most common reason that it doesn't work is caused by a misreading of "threshold" and "not truth", and folklore, chants etc. that is founded by that misreading. An analogy is like a raacecar that won 80% of its races. And half of the losses were because a tire went flat. At wp:ver we're the "tire builder". But, to try to help the cause, instead of saying "let's furnish better tires" we're saying "let's write a section on how to win races". The other half of the structural statement is that the "how to deal with inaccurate material" is a complex topic. More power and kudos to you for trying to put a bit on it in here. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Update on adding a section on "Accuracy"

Well... the proposal to add a section on "accuracy" is being discussed at WT:V... and it looks like there is more resistance than we hoped there would be. Not sure how that resistance impacts how we should proceed here. Should we give the discussion at WT:V more time?... or should we plow ahead with our drafts here? Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should treat them as separate issues. So, keep rolling on the VNT-related drafts. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It could affect how we decide to structure the RfC in step 7, but it shouldn't affect the drafts that we are making. On a slightly related note, I think we are close to being able to move to step 7 now. Whether we can move ahead depends on Unscintillating's responses to my latest comments at group one and group three. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to keep going here, and not wait. I've been watching what has been happening there, and although it's a bit disappointing, I think there are lessons to be learned from it, here. One is that tl;dr is death for any proposal for change. Another is that, just because there might be agreement about something here in the mediation, it's a big mistake to underestimate the resistance to change that will emerge when a larger slice of the community shows up. (Note that this has merely been the people who watchlist V. It'll be an even bigger population when we have a community-wide RfC.) A third is that people tend to say "no" when asked about whether we need to change something in general, as opposed to being asked to decide specifically about a concrete proposal. Some people are opposing the new section on principle, while others are objecting to specific wording, but those different objections get added together as opposition. Better to give people something already polished to respond to. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections, it looks to me that Group four is ready to go ahead with step 7. Is it OK to proceed at Group four? --Bob K31416 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• I was certainly surprised to see a member of arbcom come out in favor of quantity over quality, i.e., discouraging editors from discussing the accuracy of sources.  And yet at the same time, he did not refute the arguments, such as that one of the ways that editors identify reliable sources is by discussing their accuracy.  Does being on Arbcom create a bias towards a simpler operational definition of what defines an encyclopedia article?  There is a problem in that the editors that are attracted to discuss issues at WT:V do not necessarily represent either the force of reason or the cross-spectrum of editors.  Does anyone doubt that the consensus at Wikipedia is that we want to have a reliable encyclopedia?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• I have to say I thought he was fundamentally in the wrong, there. Possibly hadn't read as much as we have? And, in answer to that last question ... sometimes I wonder! Pesky (talk) 07:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dicta

Dicta is a legal term that refers "to any statement by a court that extends beyond the issue before the court."  In the context, the related idea is material in a policy proposal presented to the community that does more than is needed to solve the problem of the "Under discussion" tag.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Final drafts proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The result was: proceed to step 7 with Group 1 draft 0, Group 2 draft 9, Group 3 draft 22, and Group 4 draft 10, with no special status given to a question on a "scope" section. While there are differing opinions on how we use the drafts, and on whether we should use drafts at all, there seems to be a rough consensus that we would not benefit very much by continuing the drafting process further. While some of the discussion has focused on what we should do in the RfC itself, the aim of this discussion was purely to finalise the wording of the drafts so that we could move to step 7, so that is what I have based my decision on. (Not that there was anything bad about discussing what to do in the RfC; it is just that it is not directly relevant to step 6.)

There have not been any specific concerns raised about the wording of any of the drafts in this discussion, and the majority of participants have supported moving on to step 7 with the drafts listed above, so it seems a logical decision to do just that. There was substantial opposition to the "scope" section, however, so we will not move on to step 7 with the "scope" section as proposed. Instead, any possible question on a "scope" section will be debated as a part of step 7 and given equal status to other possible RfC questions. Again, I will note that this decision does not imply anything about how we include the drafts in the RfC; that will be decided during our discussions in step 7.

In addition, multiple editors have voiced the concern that the RfC might be too complicated, and that we run the risk of editors opposing our proposal(s) over the fine details, when we should be focusing on finding agreement on the general outline/principles of the policy. This concern is duly noted, and we will deal with it as a part of step 7, where it may well prove highly important in deciding what we decide to include in the RfC. It is only indirectly relevant to step 6, however, so it has not affected my decision here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

---

We seem to now be mostly in agreement on the drafts to use for each of the four work groups. I think it is about time that we make a decision on what drafts to include, and move on to the stage of actually drafting the RfC. There is still not 100% agreement on the drafts to include, though, so I am making a proposal here so that we can come to a final decision on what to do. Anything which we still can't agree on after this discussion, we can simply ask in the RfC and put the question directly to the community.

The following are the drafts that I think have the most support at each of the work groups. I propose that we include them in the RfC.

Group 1 draft 0

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. In practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. For how to write citations, see WP:Citing sources. This policy applies to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions—without exception, and in particular to material about living persons. Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with No original research and Neutral point of view. These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy. References

Group 2 draft 9

Verifiability on Wikipedia is the reader's ability to check reliable sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies, guidelines, and considerations also influence content, and particularly influence when verifiable but inaccurate material should not be included, verifiability by itself does not guarantee inclusion. Verifiability, not truth, is one of the key requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia—nothing, such as your personal experience or what you know to be true, can be a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is also verifiable. It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia 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. 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 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. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia'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. References

Group 3 draft 22

In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, their conflict should be presented from a neutral point of view, giving each side its due weight. All the material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that requires a source but does not have one may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately. For how to write citations, see Citing sources. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia'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. Footnotes

Group 4 draft 10

Verifiability is one of the most essential requirements in Wikipedia. Information added to articles must be verifiable using only reliable sources that have been published. An appropriate inline citation is evidence that information is verifiable. Inline citations are required for any information that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. Suitable inline citations should refer to published reliable sources that explicitly support the information being presented. For help on adding citations, see Citing sources. Any material that requires an inline citation but does not have a suitable one may be removed. Unsourced contentious material about living people must be removed immediately. Compliance with the Verifiability policy does not guarantee that material will be accepted. For example, it must also comply with other policies and guidelines, most notably No Original Research, Neutral Point of View, and Copyright. Notes

[Please note that the following scope section is not part of Group 4 draft 10. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)]

Also, from the discussions at group three, I think we should include a question about a "scope" section, which would be similar to group 2 draft 10:

This proposal is to insert a new section as the first section after the lede, following the index box, as follows: == Scope == The accuracy or inaccuracy of verifiable material is outside of the scope of this policy.  == Notes == [Here] is a diff for this proposed change. [Here] is the proposed new policy page. Rationale: <The rationale for the RfC will be added here.>

The exact format and text of the "scope" section will be determined in step 7.

In step 7 we will also discuss other questions or sections which we can include in the RfC, such as on the general principles of the verifiability policy, or an "accuracy" section, etc. It won't just be the drafts that I am presenting here. I am starting this discussion with the aim of coming to a final agreement on the drafts that we will use in the RfC, not on how they will be used. This discussion is still part of step 6 - we are not in step 7 yet.

Please let me know what you think of this, by including support, oppose, or neutral below, along with your rationale. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Final drafts proposal: discussion

• Oppose: We are not here to write ledes and Group 1 is still on its initial draft.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  I had a feeling that you might oppose! To clarify, I think that in step 7 we should have a wide-ranging discussion of exactly how we use the ledes from step 6. For example, we could present the ledes proposed, but strip them of all the parts unrelated to VnT. Or we could present the full ledes only as an example, and ask questions purely about the VnT parts. Or we could have separate questions for preferred lede sections and preferred VnT text. Or we could just present the entire ledes as they appear above. My idea was that we should decide these things in step 7, not now. For now, we just need to know whether the drafts are good enough for us to move on. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  Mr. Strad, a few days ago someone accused me of sucking up to you ([4]), so now I'm going to tell you what I think you are doing wrong: trying way too hard to accommodate a user who will never be accommodated. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  You might be right. For a long time, though, I couldn't see Unscintillating's objections for what (I now think) they are: attempts to keep the mediation focused narrowly and specifically on VnT. This is a goal that others in the mediation also share, and definitely something we need to discuss in step 7. As for step 6 - it is my instinct as mediator to try and accommodate everyone, but I agree that this instinct is no good if all it results in is a deadlock. If we need to remove the "scope" section from my proposal to for it to find consensus here, then that is what we should do. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I think we're ready for this part now. Pesky (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• I support terminating this extremely long drafting process and moving on towards the RFC. I still oppose including drafts of any kind in the RFC as an unnecessary distraction and I particularly oppose any form of RFC which will ask participants to choose between these drafts--this should be a request for comment that gives us a steer on the principles, and I'm concerned we're instead in the process of drafting a request for votes. We need to ask "how can we improve WP:V?", not "please will you support my preferred change to WP:V".—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  Good, it looks like we're on the same page then. I knew from your comments in step 3 that this would probably be your response. We may be able to figure out a good compromise between the "pro-draft" and "anti-draft" editors, but the time to do that will be in step 7, now now. As I said to Unscintillating above, as long as the drafts are all "good enough" to put in the RfC, then our work in step 6 is done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  S Marshall, I don't know whether this will help or not, but since I know that you have long been interested in improving the lead section, having an RfC with drafts may help get us there. Most people, I think, would rather say that they support a concrete proposal with all the wording spelled out, instead of being asked to sign on to a general concept of changing something without knowing what that change would be. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure. We've presented the community with drafts before now. It doesn't lead to consensus. What it does lead to is lengthy wrangling at the fine detail level. I'm somewhat hopeful that we might achieve progress by doing things differently this time.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Temporary oppose Any new proposals (e.g. "Scope") are going to need thorough work just as the drafts did. The "scope" draft which has an immense flaw and came from a place that only a minority was watching shows this. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

  Would you support moving to step 7 if my proposal didn't include the "scope" section? That's not to say that we couldn't discuss including a "scope" section in the RfC, just that we wouldn't give the "scope" section any special status. We would discuss it the same way we would any other additional questions, such as the "accuracy" section, or a question on what "VnT" actually means, etc. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd then support. I'd also support the scope statement if you removed the footnote, because the problem is in the footnote. Or if we modified the footnote. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I share North's concerns here. I think it's critical that anything about scope not be mutually exclusive of possible improvements to the lead, so the "scope" section, if proposed, wouldn't simply be a fifth "draft". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support using the above Group 4 draft 10 in the RFC. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• It is time to stop spinning our wheels and to finalize our drafts. Stop trying for perfect... Go with "good enough". As for the concern that the RFC will turn into a Vote... I think that is going to happen no matter what we do, and I don't see any way to avoid it. The key is to get people out of the "this and nothing else" mentality that has kept the issue going for so long... one way to do this would be to require everyone to indicate not just their first choice, but also their second choice... and tell us why they like both. This might encourage people to actually consider alternatives in a positive light, and get them out of the rut of "my way or the highway" negativity (just an off the cuff suggestion). Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

We really need an instant runoff method, at least to narrow it to two. Without that the process would be disaster. Similar ideas could cannibalize each other. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

My hope (and, I think, Mr. Strad's intention) is that we can simply decide about these drafts now, and decide about the polling structure later. One step at a time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify - yes, that was my intention (and still is). — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Beneath Group 4 draft 10's poposal, it says "The accuracy or inaccuracy of verifiable material is outside of the scope of this policy." It's not outside the scope. WP:V says that "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". See WP:SOURCES. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not there. AQFK probably meant Group 2 draft 10. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

[Please note that after I posted the above message, A Quest For Knowledge's original message was modified.[5] --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • No, it is there. Perhaps the layout or the format of this page is messed up? As it stands right now, the incorrect sentence is part of Group 4 draft 10's proposal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If it's a misc. proposal, it should be marked as such. However, I am disappointed that after months and months of debate, such a sentence would even be proposed. Please, for the love of god(s), learn existing policy before trying to rewrite it. Do you guys even realize that if this sentence is passed, not only does this go against what WP:V says, it requires deletion or radical alteration of WP:RS? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note draft 10 on the Group 4 work page.[6] I've added a note before the above mention of the Scope section to clarify that it is not part of Group 4 draft 10. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

While this policy/verifiability does help achieve accuracy, IMHO accuracy is not within the scope of this policy. Those are two different things. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support However, I don't see any of the drafts actually obtaining consensus to include in the policy. Maybe we should write a draft which combines the best points of the above and try to do an RfC on that? Yeah, I know, I haven't been here for a while, just a drop-by comment. B^e——C_ritical 17:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So far the only task/review/weigh-in was to develop a version from each group. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's conceivable that BeCritical may be right, but I wouldn't want that possibility to hold us back. It could be possible that the consensus after the RfC will be that the community wants a combination of certain features from one draft and some other features from another draft. That wouldn't be so bad, actually, because it would then be fairly straightforward to create that and then get consensus for it, but we won't find that out unless we go ahead. Not to worry: WP:There is no deadline. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong and enthusiastic Support, particularly per what Blueboar said, accompanied by some discomfort over the fifth, "scope", option, primarily per what North and Quest have said. I fully agree that the four group drafts represent what the four groups have come up with, and that we should go forward with them without letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Frankly, I don't see a convincing rationale for also including that "scope" proposal, because I really haven't seen any significant support for it, in this form, from multiple editors in this mediation. Although my first impulse was to oppose for that reason, I changed my mind on the theory that the community can come to the RfC and say of the "scope" proposal that we don't want it. But I think that we will have to treat the "scope" section as distinct from the four draft leads, in that any of the four could, potentially, be adopted by the community with or without the "scope" section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I dropped the ball on this partly because discussion seemed to veer off on to topics I didn't have the time or inclination to deal with (read: no more stamina for anything even remotely contentious). There were some things in group one which I think were useful even if novel, and I'm sorry we're leaving them behind. I had intended to structure something using drafts three and four but never got to it.(olive (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC))

• Oppose and Comment: As recent development over at WT:V shows we may be in a rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic situation here. A lot of points regarding VnT and its clarification have been raised that could make much of what we are kicking around here moot. Also I have MAJOR reservation that some of the supports are in part project fatigue of the "I want it to end", I want it to END" (curls up into a fetal position and starts babbling) variety. Littleolive oil's comment is especially troubling (and is what I meant a while back by "going off the rails"). The issue over VnT has IMHO become a total train wreck with step two being where we officially missed the signal. I have this dread that when we are done we are going to get an abomination that the community's first reaction will be 'ok that is glue factory material. How fast can we kill it?' Instead of what would have been a KISS principle project we have gotten what increasingly looks like something Rube Goldberg would have created if he had ever done acid.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Going of the rails"... Ahhhh, nope. Could you clarify what you're getting at in terms of editors who may be compromising to move forward. I'm not sure.(olive (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC))

"discussion seemed to veer off"="Going of the rails". NEXT.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Actually were I'm from going off the rails means going crazy or nuts, so while I find contentious situations to be fatiguing, I certainly haven't gone crazy dealing with them. I just prefer to bypass them if I can. Verifiability was a highly contentious discussion pre mediation, so I prefer not to get involved if it begins to veer that way or if we once again get side tracked. It may be perfectly fine with others, just not for me. Sorry for the misunderstanding. My decision to support going forward even though I wanted to add a draft version is an attempt to make this process easier rather than harder on those here.(olive (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC))

• Support. Agree with Tryptofish that the four group drafts represent what the four groups have come up with, and we should go forward with them. Agree that an RfC could include a question about a scope section. That question should be one of a list of questions about WP:V and its intro. I see the list of questions as a very important part of the RfC. It is indeed quite likely that none of these drafts will get a consensus. But if we could get consensus on questions of principle, elements of current drafts could then be used to make a text that expressed that consensus. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Just clarifying, I'm all for moving on with the 4 drafts. And I'm not opposed in principle to another "scope" add on. But IMHO we have quite a big distinction here. Four drafts that were extensively worked on in their properly titled workplaces. And then we have the scope statement which was hastily drafted who-knows where (presumably in a workspace that was titled something else like one of the 4 drafts and which only in people working that group were aware of) with, IMHO a destructive flaw in the footnote, so destructive that it damages everything that we are doing here. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that we would be well-advised to give careful thought (mainly when we come to step 7) to not adding things to the RfC that will be destructive to what (in my opinion, at least) should be the primary objective here: to see if the community will agree to a better lead for the policy. There is always a community resistance to change, and some people will latch onto things as reasons to oppose any change. That's a good reason to follow WP:KISS. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I also meant that structurally speaking the "scope" footnote reinforces the "editors are just transcription monkeys" assertion. North8000 (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Anything at all we say about "scope" here has to point to pages which clearly show editors what they should do about sources which are wrong, conflicts between sources, etc. I think WP:Inaccuracy#Reliability in the context is a link which should be included, to cover the point that even the most "reliable" sources are not infallible. Pesky (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that there are some good pointers in the Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources that are relevant to the WP:Inaccuracy#Reliability in the context section above hence the need for a Source conflict and "Inaccuracy" section.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to make myself clear, I so so so so so so much want to have the topic of accuracy and inaccurate sourced information covered with prominence and strength in Wikipedia. Like a pillar-level guideline. I think that it is a bit structurally off-topic at wp:ver and any attempt to handle it in wp:ver would do it badly due to being overly brief. That and the topic of what editors DO do are the two gaping holes in high level policies and guidelines. I'm opposed to rolling with the current "scope" statement because as written it has an immense and destructive problem, and it came from a hasty and semi-hidden process. North8000 (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

North... If you think we need a new pillar-level policy to deal with accuracy - just draft one. When you think it is ready, propose it for promotion to policy status. It may or may not gain consensus, but at least you will have tired. Blueboar (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope you mean "tried", but maybe you have a point! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment  The situation at Group 1 is that weeks have passed since Mr. Strad declared a "strong" consensus.  Weeks later we still don't know why Mr. Strad ruled as he did.  But IMO the dominant theme of not only Group 1 but this mediation is Mr. Strad's silence in the face of incivility and thread-topic disruption.  My hope that this mediation would be a community example of consensus building needs Mr. Strad as a key supporter of both WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  Unscintillating, I addressed your concerns in this comment back on April 11, and we even had a straw poll about it, which resulted in five editors agreeing to include draft 0, including you, and no-one voting against. Also, in this discussion, the only editor who has specifically said that they do not want to include group 1 draft 0 is you. Although some editors have said in this discussion that they are opposed to having drafts entirely, or that the drafts are too complicated, they have not said voiced specific opposition to group 1 draft 0. Sorry, but consensus is not unanimity.

  As for the incivility and thread-topic disruption that you mention, it is possible that I might have overlooked some threads that could have benefited from intervention. Could you point me to any specific threads or comments that you are concerned about? There might be some threads that I could intervene in now. Also, once I know what things you have considered to be disruptive, I can do a better job of recognising problem comments in the future. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that an attempt to rebut the above post would not serve the purposes of the mediation.  Part of the logic is that since "consensus is not unanimity", it is ok for the mediator to ignore my viewpoint depending on circumstances.  The logical path to avoid further responses being ignored within this viewpoint is for me to not make them.  This being said, I feel the need to comment that Group 2 Draft 10 has already served a useful purpose.  For future reference, I note that WP:CONSENSUS states that consensus is not unanimity "means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms."  Regarding the request to document incivility and topic-thread disruption, to do so here is not appropriate, to do so would need a noticeboard.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4