Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004
• April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004
• August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004
• December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005
• March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005
• July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005
• September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005
• September – December 2005
• January 2006
• January – February 2006
• February 2006
• February 2006, cont.
• March 2006
• April 2006 – late May 2006
• May 24 – July 2006
• July 2006 – August 2006
• August 2006
• Most of September 2006
• Late September 2006 – Early November 2006
• Most of November 2006
• Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006
• December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007
• From December 22, 2006 blanking
• Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007
• Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007
• From March 2, 2007 blanking
• March 2–5, 2007
• March 5–11, 2007
• March 11 – April 3, 2007
• April 2 – May 2, 2007
• May 3 – June 7, 2007
• June 9 – July 4, 2007
• July 13 – August 17, 2007
• August 17 – September 11, 2007
• September 14 – October 7, 2007
• October 28 – December 1, 2007
• December 2 – December 16, 2007
• December 15 – January 4, 2008
• January 4 – January 30, 2008
• January 30 – February 28, 2008
• February 28 – March 11, 2008
• March 9 – April 18, 2008
• April 18 – May 30, 2008
• May 30 – July 27, 2008
• July 26 – October 4, 2008
• October 4 – November 12, 2008
• November 10 – December 10, 2008
• December 5 – December 25, 2008
• December 25 – January 16, 2009
• January 15 – January 27, 2009
• January 26 – February 10, 2009
• February 8 – March 18, 2009
• March 18 – May 6, 2009
• May 5 – June 9, 2009
• June 10 – July 11, 2009
• July 12 – August 25, 2009
• August 26 – October 3, 2009
• October 4 – November 20, 2009
• November 20 – December 21, 2009
• December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010
• January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010
• February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010
• March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010
• April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010
• April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010
• May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010
• June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010
• June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010
• July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010
• August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010
• August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010
• September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010
• October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010
• November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010
• November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010
• December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010
• December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011
• January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011
• February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011
• March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011
• March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011
• April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011
• May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011
• June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011
• July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011
• July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011
• July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011
• August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011
• August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011
• August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011
• September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011
• September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011
• October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011
• November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011
• November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011
• November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011
• December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011
• December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act)
• December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011
• December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012
• January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012
• January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012
• January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012
• February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012
• February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012
• February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012
• March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012
• March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012
• April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012
• April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012
• April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012
• May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012
• May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012
• June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012
• June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012
• June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012
• July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012
• July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012
• July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012
• August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012
• August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012
• September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012
• September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012
• September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012
• October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012
• October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012
• November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012
• December 2–15, 2012
• December 15–28, 2012
• December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013
• January 13–31, 2013
• February 1–10, 2013
• February 11–28, 2013
• March 1–16, 2013
• March 17–27, 2013
• March 28 – April 6, 2013
• April 6–19, 2013
• April 19 – May 3, 2013
• April 25 – May 8, 2013
• May 6–19, 2013
• May 18–30, 2013
• May 27 – June 16, 2013
• June 17–30, 2013
• June 27 – July 30, 2013
• July 31 – August 4, 2013
• August 4–12, 2013
• August 13–27, 2013
• August 28 – September 4, 2013
• September 5–10, 2013
• September 11–22, 2013
• September 24 – October 6, 2013
• October 7–16, 2013
• October 17–27, 2103
• October 28 – November 6, 2013
• November 7–19, 2013
• November 20–27, 2013
• November 28 – December 5, 2013
• December 6–24, 2013
• December 25–30, 2013
• December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014
• January 15–24, 2014
• January 25–29, 2014
• January 30 – February 10, 2014
• Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183

FYI. There was an RFC on a proposal that began on Oct 5 re WP:V. The RFC had the participation of about a hundred editors. About 8 hours ago it was closed as successful by an administrator and the changes were implemented in WP:V. Since then, the changes have been reverted. A couple of hours ago there began intense activity opposing the proposal, after this edit. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Jimbo. I was just coming over myself, because I'm very distressed at what's going on. (I was the admin who did the close.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Reminder: Well, I am not convinced that moving "verifiability, not truth" to be lower in the policy page was really a helpful, significant change. What people should understand is that the word "verifiability" requires "truth in representing sources", plus some sources are not correct, so "truth" is an aspect required to judge accurate sources (articles should not cite known false, out-dated sources). Hence, the broader reality is "verifiability and truth" (while the word "not" has been misleading for years). Meanwhile, the phrase "verifiability-not-truth" sounds like convoluted "Yoda-speak" (Yoda: "Do, or do not; there is no "try"), so even when people do not gag about verifiability requiring truth ("verity"), some viewers will read the "verifiability-not-truth" phrase and think, "WTF??" (trendy term for "sounds like utter patent nonsense"). I can appreciate a compromise, to lower the "not-truth" phrase further down into the policy, but "Can't we all just get along" with reality, and accept the fact that Misplaced Pages is in the truth business? -Wikid77 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You make some good points, but you also miss a few (possibly though due to how obvious they are). Articles should be permitted to cite known false/outdated sources. It's how they are used that's important. I can point out thousands of articles where it is required to cite such sources. One example is Flat_Earth. Besides reasons such as applicable to that article, often, to show historical changes in perceptions and understandings, it is also required to cite incorrect/outdated sources (grossly paraphrased made up example: "In the 1500's scientists believed (some item we believe to be nonsense now){incorrect/outdated cite}, which was later proved to be false{newer cite with current beliefs/theories}").

And of course, truth is often largely irrelevant when beliefs, belief systems and such come into play. In those instances, since for each belief system there are dozens or thousands of conflicting ones, we cannot determine truth, but can simply only posit what each believes without giving weight to which is "true". These are some of the key reasons why verifiability is more important than our own individual "truths". It's one of the reasons that "v... not t..." is so important. Numerous (many many many) Misplaced Pages articles are comprised of way too many beliefs that have counter-beliefs and no universally held "truths". Even the same goes for BLPs, where all we have is what's reported, which is at best just a shadow of the truth. Of course, in those situations, it again boils down to properly using all sources; correct or incorrect, outdated or new. If BillyBob made (notable) claims about MarySue, which were later proved to be false, they still (sources and all) should be included - but with the new information and cites presented as well. Of course, that gets back to weighing the notability and relevance of each.

Simple point is, it's far more complex than "old vs new" or "incorrect vs correct". It's a balancing act that needs to be encompassed by numerous other policies and guidelines to determine how such is applied in each article. And with a lot of NPOV and BALANCE (not bias) applied to ensure due weight to each individually and conflicting views as a whole. At least, those are my thoughts.

One last thought. Too many people seem to pick apart one single policy or guideline in an effort to improve it without looking at the bigger picture to realize that one cannot do that without determining how it affects the interaction of that policy/guideline with the numerous others we are required to adhere to. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 17:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

• Overcomplicating issues can obscure the role of truth: I agree there is a balance, but when dwelling on "it's far more complex" then there is the danger to overlook the simple factors. It reminds me of the student talking to his parents, "We had a long discussion in philosophy class today, and I no longer know what really exists, perhaps it is all an illusion, and is anything real?" The parents, of course, reply like, "Well, we always thought your car and your allowance were real, but perhaps they no longer exist." Articles should be true to the sources for a specific topic, and the sources should be checked for known factual errors. The key issue is that truth is determined by the collection of sources; when there is a mixed difference of opinions, then that is the limit to the truth of those sources. When people have tried to justify the "verifiability-not-truth" phrase, they use terms such as "no absolute truth" or Misplaced Pages does not seek "The Truth" because that seems to be the heart of the problem (versus truth relative to sources). Instead, when articles are written and copy-edited for corrections, the editors are working with so-called "journalistic truth" where a reporter focuses on what the sources have said or written. That is why "Flat earth" addresses the concept as an out-dated mode of thinking (compared to "The earth is round"), and the old sources are used to show that some people formerly believed in that concept, but secondary sources judge the earlier primary sources as having mistaken notions. WP uses secondary sources to give true opinions about the concepts, where possible. For example, a controversy in that topic concerns quoting Greek philosopher Aristotle out-of-context, where he wrote a comparison of the flat-earth and round-earth concepts, but some people used only part of his text to "prove" he believed the earth was flat (not actually), by quoting selected phrases, out-of-context, and omitting the parts where he noted the earth as round. Step 1: Focus on truth, then the next steps involve weighing the sources and avoiding a partial out-of-context quote about a topic. The focus on truth is how slanted text is judged. When a new WP:RS source is published which reports, "The conviction has been overturned", then WP should change the article to reflect the truth, not pretend the conviction stands as verified by an out-dated source. That is how current up-to-date sources are detected as being omitted, and the focus on truth is why an article which omits the acquittal would no longer be viewed as correct. Misplaced Pages is in the truth business, where truth is determined by all the sources, to the extent possible. Beyond that point, the truth is uncertain, but WP articles do not depend on "verifiability-not-truth" in practice, just in policy wording which confuses many people. The focus on truth is how an editor can determine a word is misspelled, versus a variant spelling, and when to append "" to emphasize a misspelled word is truly a direct quote from a source. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, a splendid example of how things work all too often on Misplaced Pages -- for a rather different sort of take try reading WP:Ab initio showing an attempt to explain the reasoning behind policies, rather than counting angels on the heads of pins within policies <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

After this notice got posted on WP:AN there was a flood of opposes in that WP:V RfC. That's quite interesting sociologically because a notice had been up for nearly month at WP:CENT, which is transcluded on WP:AN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and you only have 15 minutes to comment on the issue above before the offer expires! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Many editors do not pay attention to WP:CENT on a regular basis. Thus, there is nothing whatsoever unusual about the "flood" of opposes and essentially equal flood of approves. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

For policy change proposals, perhaps something similar to what we use for "Gee, we're all getting together in NYC next weekend. Yay!!!" should be used, that way all editors are made aware of such. I understand the importance (and fun) of interacting with the community at such events, but I'd posit that community involvement in potential policy changes is probably a lot more important. And oddly, though rarely used for such, the mechanisms are already in place to ensure such involvement. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 17:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)