Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 21

message: The definition of secondary sources currently reads, in part:
... An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.
Scholarly work focuses on primary sources precisely because it focuses on facts, more than later interpretations of these facts. As written, this makes it easier to reference interpretations than facts, which is just backwards.
I suggest (rambling):
* Wikipedia articles should build on factual claims, not interpretations
* Wikipedia editors should not introduce new factual claims (OR) or new interpretations (OR)
* Wikipedia articles should list sources for important factual claims and all non-obvious interpretations
* Factual claims can come from primary or secondary sources.
* Interpretations can come from primary or secondary sources. Nonpartisan secondary sources are preferred; however, other sources may provide fact claims which contradict the interpretation in question.
* Quotes may be used, but are not necessary. If possible, quotes should come from the primary source and appear in secondary sources (some older quotes may only appear in secondary sources).
** Quotes should be removed if they are taken out of context
** Quotes may be challenged if they contradict other statements from the same author, if they contradict secondary sources about their author, if they are excessive, if they are misleading, or other reasons. Jacob Haller 23:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very opposed. At the root, such a liberal policy would open up a world of abuse and grossly neglects some basics. For example, historical sources need to be evaluated for accuracy, reliability and similar factors. That requires the use of secondary sources to avoid original research. To present a specific, Caesar's Gallic War is widely renowned for its exacting language and relative accuracy. However, it is also known to contain likely false hearsay and is considered a masterwork of propaganda. So, even one of the most well-regarded historical sources has problems and only reliable secondary/tertiary sources can distinguish for us between the good and the bad, if we're to avoid original research. Primary sources were discouraged with good reason, the change spurred by abuse of such references. Outside the census data and precious few other examples, there is no demonstrated need for primary sources, and we're perfectly allowed to judge when an exception is appropriate. Vassyana 02:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concerns. But the way this is written, it's as though the addition of interpretation makes it the reliable source, and we end up being able to cite interpretations, but not facts. I wish we could tag multiple qualities of sources. Jacob Haller 02:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's any bar to citing facts. You can cite primary sources - you just can't use them to make a case that goes against their interpretation by reliable secondary sources. You could cite Einstein's paper on special relativity directly (despite it being a primary source) - you just can't cite it in support of the Time Cube. I think that's really (one of) the point(s) of WP:NOR. MastCell Talk 03:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Jacob Haller's analysis is a good one, although I think it's important to build both on facts and interpretations. Sometimes interpretations are just as important as facts. I think maybe we should start a separate Wikipedia Guideline, or maybe beef up Wikipedia:Classification of sources, because this issue gets far beyond the basic issue of prohibiting original research, and also includes issues of WP:NPOV (secondary sources are more biased than primary sources), WP:Notability (the existence of secondary sources is one indicator of notability), and WP:Reliable sources (sources, whether primary or secondary, must be reliable). COGDEN 17:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree:  build on both facts and interpretations.  Facts can be based on primary sources, and interpretations from secondary sources. Both are important to a good encyclopedia article. --Coppertwig 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Currently the page says in bold type: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources."  This gives a strong impression that primary sources are not to be used. Perhaps it needs to be edited/clarified -- or at least the bold type removed. --Coppertwig 19:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts and Interpretations 

message: I think Jacob Haller hit on a very important point in the second bullet above: " Wikipedia editors should not introduce new factual claims (OR) or new interpretations (OR)." OR as defined here has two different aspects: 
*Creating a primary source by making new factual claims 
*Creating a secondary source by making new interpretation of facts
This may be behind much of the confusion, misunderstanding, and misapplication of this policy. This NOR policy brings two different concepts under one umbrella term, but does not make it clear that it is talking about two different but related things by comparing and contrasting them. We should further develop this distinction. Dhaluza 12:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dual nature of OR

message: Here is a proposed new section on primary and secondary sources. I think this is a better explanation of the difference between primary and secondary sources, and sets a clear rule for editors to follow, which we need, since this is a policy, not a guideline. If we want to make further suggestions or guidelines regarding the primacy of primary or secondary sources, we can do that in a separate guideline, or at Wikipedia:Classification of sources.
===Primary and secondary sources===
Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways. Sources may be divided into two categories:
*A primary source is a manuscript, record, or document providing original research or documentation. A primary source is where original data, information, theories, or conclusions first appear, and all original research begins its life in a primary source.
*A secondary source is a second-hand report or review of a primary source. It includes reviews or interpretations of original research written by someone other than the original researcher. A source may be both a primary source and a secondary source; for example, if a scientist reviews the experimental results of another scientist, her review is a secondary source. But if the scientist makes further novel conclusions based on the prior scientist's data, her writing is also a primary source with respect to those novel conclusions. Secondary sources that review many primary and other secondary sources are sometimes called tertiary sources. This sub-category includes textbooks, treatises, dictionaries, and encyclopedias such as Wikipedia itself. Tertiary sources are not usually sources of original research, though they may report and review original research found in other publications.
Wikipedia can never be a primary source. Before being cited by a Wikipedia article, all original research, data, or information must first appear in a primary source, or be commented upon in a secondary source.
COGDEN 18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of "original research" here does not fit in with my understanding of it.  Original research does not begin its life in a primary source.  It can be born in my own imagination.  I have done so before when composing examples on this talk page.  This proposal is very far off-base in my opinion.--BirgitteSB 18:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's in your own imagination, it isn't a "source". You can't cite "my mind": it has to be something written. COGDEN 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly "original research" is the opposite of "source-based research"  it does not depends on sources.  You cannot say "all original research begins its life in a primary source"--BirgitteSB 13:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree it's important to cite scientific research articles. This edit would not disallow that, and in fact encourages it. Just because a new theory in a scientific article is a primary source doesn't make it unciteable. Primary sources aren't bad, they're just original. COGDEN 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia can be a primary source, and not only about itself.  For example, if someone makes a controversial statement on a Wikipedia talk page, and that statement is later quoted in newspaper articles, and then there's a Wikipedia page about the controversy, the original talk page statement would be a primary source about the statement -- which might have nothing to do with Wikipedia. --Coppertwig 19:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia talk page can be a primary source, but a Wikipedia article should never be a primary source. That's the essence of the original research policy. COGDEN 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An edit to a Wikipedia article can be a primary source, for the same reason as the talk page.  Wait, even a Wikipedia article itself (or a particular version of it) can be a primary source.  Suppose there are a lot of newspaper articles about an incident centring around the fact that a certain Wikipedia article contained a certain controversial (perhaps false or even outlandish) statement at a certain time.  The original version of the Wikipedia article would be a primary source to establish a basic fact re the incident -- although the newspaper articles would be required to establish the significance of the whole incident.  But, the Wikipedia article would not be being used as a source in the ordinary way, i.e. to gather facts about the subject matter of the article by taking it at face value. --Coppertwig 22:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a Wikipedia article can be a primary source. I'm just saying that it shouldn't. If a Wikipedia article every becomes a primary source, something in the process has gone wrong, or somebody hasn't followed Wikipedia policy, and it usually becomes an embarrassment for Wikipedia. COGDEN 19:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that a Wikipedia article should be able to be used as a primary source in a case such as I described.  Please explain why you think it should not.  To clarify, here's an example:  Suppose a  particular version of a Wikipedia article says something controversial about a country, and a leader of another country publicly quotes it as "Wikipedia says that ...", the first country takes offense, and a war begins as a result.  Suppose it's all documented in newspaper articles and other reliable sources.  Later, a Wikipedia article about the causes of the war should be able to use the (appropriate version of the) original Wikipedia article as a primary source to establish a basic fact, i.e. the fact that the Wikipedia article did (or did not) say a certain thing, in the same way that it would use, say, the original newspaper article as a primary source if it was a remark in a newspaper instead that had started the whole thing. --Coppertwig 19:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new section on ''Primary and secondary sources'' 

message: Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. However, care should be taken not to "go beyond" the sources or use them in novel ways. Sources may be divided into two categories:
*A primary source is a manuscript, record, or document providing original research or documentation. A primary source is where original data, information, theories, or conclusions first appear, and all original research begins its life in a primary source.
*A secondary source is a second-hand report or review of a primary source. It includes reviews or interpretations of original research written by someone other than the original researcher. A source may be both a primary source and a secondary source; for example, if a scientist reviews the experimental results of another scientist, her review is a secondary source. But if the scientist makes further novel conclusions based on the prior scientist's data, her writing is also a primary source with respect to those novel conclusions. Secondary sources that review many primary and other secondary sources are sometimes called tertiary sources. This sub-category includes textbooks, treatises, dictionaries, and encyclopedias such as Wikipedia itself. Tertiary sources are not usually sources of original research, though they may report and review original research found in other publications.
Wikipedia can never be a primary source. Before being cited by a Wikipedia article, all original research, data, or information must first appear in a primary source, or be commented upon in a secondary source.
</div>
COGDEN 18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of "original research" here does not fit in with my understanding of it.  Original research does not begin its life in a primary source.  It can be born in my own imagination.  I have done so before when composing examples on this talk page.  This proposal is very far off-base in my opinion.--BirgitteSB 18:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's in your own imagination, it isn't a "source". You can't cite "my mind": it has to be something written. COGDEN 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly "original research" is the opposite of "source-based research"  it does not depends on sources.  You cannot say "all original research begins its life in a primary source"--BirgitteSB 13:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree it's important to cite scientific research articles. This edit would not disallow that, and in fact encourages it. Just because a new theory in a scientific article is a primary source doesn't make it unciteable. Primary sources aren't bad, they're just original. COGDEN 22:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Primary and secondary sources

message: Just as a quick note, it has been pointed out that, in certain unusual cases, wikipedia can be a primary source - about itself.
In terms of Wikipedia:Classification of sources, if there is a perceived need (as there seems to be sometimes) then that can be worked into a guideline, although it would need to change in focus somewhat. SamBC(talk) 18:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia can be a primary source, and not only about itself.  For example, if someone makes a controversial statement on a Wikipedia talk page, and that statement is later quoted in newspaper articles, and then there's a Wikipedia page about the controversy, the original talk page statement would be a primary source about the statement -- which might have nothing to do with Wikipedia. --Coppertwig 19:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia talk page can be a primary source, but a Wikipedia article should never be a primary source. That's the essence of the original research policy. COGDEN 22:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An edit to a Wikipedia article can be a primary source, for the same reason as the talk page.  Wait, even a Wikipedia article itself (or a particular version of it) can be a primary source.  Suppose there are a lot of newspaper articles about an incident centring around the fact that a certain Wikipedia article contained a certain controversial (perhaps false or even outlandish) statement at a certain time.  The original version of the Wikipedia article would be a primary source to establish a basic fact re the incident -- although the newspaper articles would be required to establish the significance of the whole incident.  But, the Wikipedia article would not be being used as a source in the ordinary way, i.e. to gather facts about the subject matter of the article by taking it at face value. --Coppertwig 22:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a Wikipedia article can be a primary source. I'm just saying that it shouldn't. If a Wikipedia article every becomes a primary source, something in the process has gone wrong, or somebody hasn't followed Wikipedia policy, and it usually becomes an embarrassment for Wikipedia. COGDEN 19:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that a Wikipedia article should be able to be used as a primary source in a case such as I described.  Please explain why you think it should not.  To clarify, here's an example:  Suppose a  particular version of a Wikipedia article says something controversial about a country, and a leader of another country publicly quotes it as "Wikipedia says that ...", the first country takes offense, and a war begins as a result.  Suppose it's all documented in newspaper articles and other reliable sources.  Later, a Wikipedia article about the causes of the war should be able to use the (appropriate version of the) original Wikipedia article as a primary source to establish a basic fact, i.e. the fact that the Wikipedia article did (or did not) say a certain thing, in the same way that it would use, say, the original newspaper article as a primary source if it was a remark in a newspaper instead that had started the whole thing. --Coppertwig 19:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to suggestion

message: Am I right in believing that pretty well any sentence in Wikipedia that says that something "appears to" be true or false or what have you violates this policy?  For example, in hackle, the statement "the French-speaking fusilier regiments do not appear to" wear hackles looks to me like somebody was unable to find any reliable third party sources indicating that these regiments wear hackles, and then concluded that they probably don't.  That conclusion is OR, no? Sarcasticidealist 09:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily. The sentence with "appears to" might have a footnote attached, going to a source stating that X does not wear Y or that apparently X does not wear Y.  In that case I don't think it would be OR.  It does sound a bit like a weasel word, though. --Coppertwig 16:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: While it won't apply to 100% of situations, "appears to" is a pretty good indicator of OR. If a source states something like "X appears to be Y" then it should be stated in the article that "according to source S, X appears to be Y". Otherwise, even it is properly sourced, it's going to appear to be OR. Chaz Beckett 16:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I get it.  If a source states "X is Y", then the Wikipedia article can either state "X is Y" (if this is uncontroversial), or "According to source S, X is Y".  But if the source says "X appears to be Y", then I can't think of a good way to word the Wikipedia article without prose attribution.   It wouldn't sound right to say "X appears to be Y," since that's an opinion, and a Wikipedia article can sometimes assert facts but cannot assert an opinion.  (But what if everyone agrees that X appears to be Y -- for example, if that's the only reasonable interpretation of a certain scientific result?) --Coppertwig 17:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone agrees that a claim is factual and accurate, then a citation is probably not required. References are required when a claim is challenged, or likely to be challenged. Vassyana 17:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the important point is that it should always be made clear where a particular assertion came from. A prhase such as "appears to" is almost always going to be a interpretation or judgement instead of an objective fact. It especially important to make sure it not us, as editor, making the interpretation. We need to cite who's making it and possibly quote their reasoning. For example, "according to John Smith, professor of economics at Harvard University, the housing market appears to be stabilizing, based on several new reports". If an editor read these same reports and stated that the housing market appears to be stabilizing, that would be OR. Overall, with the exception of direct quotes, I can't really think of situations in which "appears to" would be a good phrase to use in an article. Chaz Beckett 17:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, all.  You've more or less confirmed what I thought, but I didn't want to start deleting what is a very common phrase on Wikipedia's lower-end articles without some validation (even now I'm not going to become some kind of crusader - I'll just fix it as I come across it). Sarcasticidealist 18:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How about in a caption to a photograph.  Then it would be just a careful way of wording a description of the photo without making any assumptions.  For example, if there was a photo of one of these regiments mentioned in the original post, and it was a bunch of soldiers not wearing hackles, then it could be appropriate to write "the French-speaking fusilier regiments do not appear to wear hackles". Squidfryerchef 01:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are more than free to try omitting a reference, and see what happens. One of the most unambiguous ways to determine whether a claim is likely to be challenged is to see if someone challenges it. If you upload a picture of something, it is usually acceptable to make some obvious claims about what it represents. When someone disputes an unattributed claim, then it is time to find a reference. —Kanodin 01:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Appears that" 

message: it's been thrown around in both afd's for streisand effect and i'm tired of it. WP:NOR is stupid. the examples provided in that article are examples of the streisand effect and you don't need to cite an article that mentions the words "streisand effect" to see that - what you need is common sense. all you should need for any article is common sense. for that reason, this page should be redirected to WP:UCS and people should not nominate streisand effect for deletion every 2 months. 209.209.214.5 05:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the NOR policy concept is sound, but some editors engage in a corollary of NOR by going beyond the policy consensus, and labeling things OR that most reasonable editors would not. Specifically they take "No original research" literally, forgetting that "original research" is a defined term on WP and cut it down to "no research". The article you cite is an excellent example, because it has survived two AfD's with a strong consensus for keep each time, so we have a fairly reliable indicator of the community consensus. Despite this, a small minority of editors object to the content because they think it's OR, even though the content is sourced. The objection seems to be related to an extreme interpretation of OR which holds that grouping things that are synonymous is OR if the references do not use the exact same terminology. But that is not OR, it is making an obvious conclusion that should be apparent to any educated person, which is specifically allowed. So the policy is not stupid, but that does not mean that stupid people can't use it stupidly. Dhaluza 13:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree. Some concepts are clearly grouped as a single subject, but have widely varying terminology. Talk:Dharmic religion is having a discussion about such a subject currently. The best way to head off such problems, I tend to think, is a well sourced section describing the problem. Taoic religion#Terminology is a decent example. (Of course, a dose of common sense doesn't hurt either.) Vassyana 21:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... I just clicked the last reference in the article, "The Streisand Effect", and not only is that the title of the article, but it also mentions the word "Streisand" several times. wbfergus 14:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is that article. The references for many of the purported examples of this effect, however, don't use the term (perhaps that's to be expected, as the term is a neologism). This sort of article is what results when we take a clever turn of phrase and blow it out of proportion. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:NOR is stupid 

message: I find that many religious articles are hopelessly biased. It is quite common for works which present and defend one theology to characterize certain opponents as "false prophets," "heresiarchs," "heretics," etc. but it is quite inappropriate for Wikipedia to do the same thing (recognizing that what is biased as the "voice of Wikipedia" may be unbiased as the "voice of x tradition," so attribution can avoid bias).
I have encountered two arguments which I see as efforts, deliberate or not, to use WP:NOR in an end-run around WP:NPOV; the most common simply adds citations and removes the neutrality disputed tag as though it were a citation needed tag; another argues that secondary  sources much state the person was NOT an X to remove the description as X. Jacob Haller 18:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly POV statements like "false prophets" need to be explicitly associated with a specific source/author. However, they should not be excluded. NPOV is not about presenting an objectively "neutral" article per se, but rather about reporting all relevant POVs. If the reference is a fringe work or representative of an extreme minority, the reference is not suited for Wikipedia in most cases. In a contradiction between sources, the article should present both views, without an attempt to reconcile the sources (unless a third reference happens to do so). Also, recalling examples you raised before, remember that people are not permitted to take a dictionary definition and employ an analysis/synthesis to say "the dictionary says X is Y, since Z is not X, Z is not Y". Such tactics have a number of flaws. If a historical figure is being discussed, does that word still have the same connotations and meanings? Does the dictionary encompass all legitimate applications and meanings of the word? Questions like that are best left to reliable third-party sources, or else original research is nearly unavoidable. Vassyana 18:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if they are calling one side "heretical" then they are taking sides - they are not third-party sources in that sense. It doesn't mean they aren't useful sources. I've used quite a few of them myself, it's just that people need to follow both NOR and NPOV. I'm also not averse to write-hangon-fix. I've written stuff with fact tags in the original text to cite, and possibly correct, it later. Jacob Haller 20:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End-runs around WP:NPOV? 

message: Over at the Harry Potter WikiProject the Spells in Harry Potter article has just survived its third AfD nomination, where it took a battering for including etymologies for most of the incantations, which are almost invariably derived from latin or greek.  There was much debate as to whether including "Etymology: The Latin avis means "bird"." in the spell Avis (which conjures a flock of birds from the caster's wand) constituted original research or simple common sense.  I'd be very interested to hear the opinions of a wider spread of Wikipedia editors.  Do word etymologies, especially when they are utterly self-evident, constitute original research?  Happy-melon 09:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is similar to the issue in Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#WP:NOR is stupid above. I have also seen other examples of extreme interpretations of WP:NOR argued at AfD, which may be evidence of a larger problem. As for this specific example, while in some sense calling the association an "Etymology" could be considered OR because etymologies are usually found in published sources, juxtaposing the two obviously related facts is not OR. So simply saying "in Latin avis means 'bird' " in the explanation of the spell "avis" is an obvious conclusion, and should not be considered OR, but calling it an "Etymology" may not be supportable. Dhaluza 09:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It should be OK to mention that "Avis" means "bird" in Latin.  You cannot guess that's why the author chose the word "avis", but you can say "bird" as long as you don't make any inferences from it. Squidfryerchef 02:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word Etymologies 

message: In other words, please, somebody else, do that.  --Minasbeede 23:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't want to write any more until someone breaks up the last section 

message: There you go, Minas. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues at hand, part 2:  The ''Revenge'' (Arbitrary Break) 

message: Please see WP:BLP/N#Ongoing WP:BLP-related concerns, particularly: WP:BLP/N#WP:BLP#Reliable sources policy section itself, which pertain to questions pertaining to verifiability and reliability of sources of material about living persons (not only biographies but other articles concerning living persons as well), including questions pertaining to sources being linked via "external links" in Wikipedia space (WP:EL), whether it be in source citations, or in References and/or External links sections.  Some of the issues being debated in the talk page of that Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons) also pertain to WP:NOR.  Thank you. --NYScholar 17:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: [[WP:BLP#Reliable sources]] 

message: What means ”not truth” in Wikipedia policy statement?  Quote from @INTERNET Wikipedia Truth 2007-08-30 
The semantic field of the word truth extends from "honesty, good faith, sincerity" in
general to "agreement with fact or reality" in particular. The term has no single
definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree.
Various theories of truth, usually involving different definitions, continue to be debated.
There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define
and identify truth; what roles do revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether
truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various
perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.
The article lists, and describes, ten (10) leading propositions of the meaning, or definition, of ”truth”.
The word ”truth” is however, apparently as I know, used in Wikipedia policy AS IF the word ”truth” WOULD have some
unambiguous meaning. Question is: what meaning? AS QUOTED ABOVE, a general meaning seems not to exist.
So, what is meant then or aimed at in Wikipedia’s ”…verifiability, not truth”? Is it 
not "honesty, good faith, sincerity, agreement with fact or reality"
<div
style="font-family: Times New Roman" style="font-size:9pt">? 
(That would indeed seem strange …). Or what? 
</div>
Perhaps the well respected  eminence of Birgitte (or other), who seems acquainted with the Wikipedia philosophy and
policy, could please explain, or try with synonyms to clarify the Wikipedia meaning of ”not truth” in ”…<span
style="font-size:12pt">verifiability, not truth</span>”. Thank you, in advance, for taking your time. 
--BMJ 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This generally means that we report things that we can verifiably show to have been reported by reliable sources without specific regard as to whether they are true, as in "correct", in any absolute/ontological sense. If media reports of certain events are wrong, that's not our problem, although if other media sources make that allegation then we report it. Just because something is "true" (as in correct), doesn't mean it can be in wikipedia, and even if something's "false" (as in incorrect) doesn't mean it shouldn't be in wikipedia. It probably shouldn't, but we ignore that, instead basing what wikipedia contains on what has been reported in reliable sources. Does that clear it up? SamBC(talk) 01:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the fast response SamBC. I do not intend to argue with you, ever, I just wanted a clarification. Would you approve if I make this reference (?): According to Wikipedia sources, the meaning of ”not true” in the Wikipedia policy statement (”The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth”), ”generally means that we report things that we can verifiably show to have been reported by reliable sources without specific regard as to whether they are true, as in "correct", in any absolute/ontological sense.”, your statement. Is that a correct apprehension by me of your contributed clarification? --BMJ 03:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What means ”not truth” in Wikipedia policy statement? 

message: By my count, we are fairly evenly split on keeping the current version in place or reverting back to the version I've pointed out. Since there is no consensus for keeping the disputed recent changes, I think we should revert back to the version I've suggested and move forward with discussion from there.  At that point we can archive most of this talk page, unprotect the article and have a fruitful discussion as to changes.  Right now, we're still in an edit-war state which is totally unacceptable.  Edit warring is not the right method for making changes to any article, much less policy.
I'd like to clear all this up, so we can possibly set up an RfC to draw other eyes, and this page is entirely too convoluted and argumentative - mainly due to the method used to make the changes, edit-warring.  That needs to be stopped. 
I propose we unprotect the article, revert back to the pre-edit-war version, archive this talk page and then discuss the changes proposed, as is the standard and best practice for dispute resolution.  Anyone disagree? Dreadstar † 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone disagrees, but the concern seems to be how to "organize" this discussion page so it doesn't get as convoluted again with 2 or 3 more days. If that can be organized and presented in a fashion acceptable to others, then I think that everybody would go along with it. But just reverting the main policy page and allowing this page to remain as is is just asking for more confusion and trouble. wbfergus 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's been clearly shown that the previous version that stood for several months had consensus, so it is a good starting point. However, it's also clear that people on both sides of the debate have varying issues with the current formulation, though these concerns are not mutually exclusive. I feel the willingness to compromise has been very one-sided. Unprotecting the page will not be problematic unless people continue to insist on pushing through major changes without discussion and consensus. Vassyana 17:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are treating this policy article as if it were a Wikipedia content article. It's not, and there is no policy "inertia" for statements that at one point seemed to have consensus, but clearly do not after wider exposure (see WP:ATT for case in point). Policies must describe, not lead, Wikipedia practice WP:Policies and guidelines. There is no place in a policy for controversial statements, and the fact that things are "evenly split" means that there is no consensus and the controversial statements must be removed. OR is one of the pillar policies of Wikipedia, with the potential to do wide-spread damage to the Wikipedia institution if we get it wrong. If any part of OR is clearly shown not to have a present consensus, or not to describe Wikipedia practice, it should be removed immediately. COGDEN 20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the proposal fails, since it seems the edit war would only be continued if the previous version were to be put back into place.  Further warring is an unacceptable outcome.Dreadstar † 22:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal