Wikipedia talk:Verifiability: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 1,074:

:::: I will reiterate that, if the ''prior'' is that other policies and guidelines are neutral, then verifiability does create a reason for inclusion. So, if information is not excluded under [[WP:NOT]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:OR]], [[WP:BLP]], then ''of course'' verifiability creates a reason for inclusion. To rephrase, if ''there is no reason in policy at all not to exclude the information'', then ''of course'' being verifiable creates a reason for inclusion. I am astonished that anyone would seriously suggest otherwise. For example, if a fact is printed in a standard textbook on ''Quantum Electrodynamics'', you are of the opinion that that information ''should not'' be included, because we don't have a policy that says that facts from standard physics textbooks are the kinds of things that should be printed in an encyclopedia? Nonsense. The presumption is that such facts do belong in an encyclopedia. And I defy anyone here to seriously suggest otherwise. [[User:Sławomir Biały|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span>]] ([[User talk:Sławomir Biały|talk]])

::::::Other policies and guidelines are never "neutral", they are all in operation simultaneously. What you mean by 'neutral' appears to be, all the other policies support inclusion, and thus you are far beyond Variability alone supporting inclusion. As for that fact on Quantum Dynamics, there is no doubt that fact should not be included in millions of our articles (almost all of our articles, in fact). [[User:Alanscottwalker|Alanscottwalker]] ([[User talk:Alanscottwalker|talk]]) 00:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

::::::: I don't think there is anything in conflict here with what I am saying. Verifiability creates a "reason for inclusion", along with neutral point of view, BLP, OR, etc. No one has suggested a binary decision here. But the current wording of the policy is not acceptable: verifiability most certainly is ''a'' reason for inclusion. There may be other reasons too, either for inclusion or exclusion. The purpose of the sentence should be to emphasize the need for the policies to work together, not to exclude verifiability from that particular calculus. Furthermore, I still maintain that most of the boring facts that are added to our encyclopedia (e.g., the vapor point of mercury), do not require a complicated calculus of policies to justify their inclusion: verifiability is usually enough. [[User:Sławomir Biały|<span style="text-shadow:grey 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em; class=texhtml">Sławomir Biały</span>]] ([[User talk:Sławomir Biały|talk]]) 01:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

* '''No''', or at least certainly not this way. Regardless the merits for a change, the new wording is a terrible one. For a start, the new section title (''not a reason for inclusion'') doesn't match the new body description (''not ''alone'' a reason for inclusion''), in a way that makes for different and in some way conflicting meanings; I for one could live with the text in the body, but the section title is unacceptable.

:Procedurally, the new wording was achieved with a short discussion that was not publicized, therefore achieving limited feedback that could have got us a better text. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 12:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)