Talk:Verificationism

LLM generated content

Most of the new content appears to have been generated over a 10-hour session on the 28th of November 2025. Because it seems to have used the existing content as a framework for further explanation, any potential for hallucinated content should hopefully be limited and what I've briefly examined of the content appears to be sound. WP:LLM has preliminary guidance on how this should be approached.

The content will need rigorous source-checking where any references are new. Secondary issues are mainly aesthetic: Balance and condense any areas that go into excessive or intricate detail, adjust the tone in places to make it more approachable to popular-level readers, make it read less like it was written by a machine. Watchman21 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I've re-written the lede, condensing key information to around 300-400 words, and have already encountered what appears to be hallucinated content, such as ambiguated distinctions between verificationism and falsificationism. For those attempting to re-write the text, I think it's reasonable to presume more hallucinated content will be found in the body of the article. Watchman21 (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the content

I don't think anything was hallucinated or unsupported by cited sources. If you take issue with how a falsificationist criterion was mentioned in the "Theory" section, this is probably because I began to expand the article by looking at the review of many verificationist criteria in "Minimal Verificationism" by Gordian Haas, which includes a falsificationist criterion. From a theoretical (rather than historical) standpoint, it is certainly related, and I don't think anything was made ambiguous by this (since the article did not claim that falsificationism is a form of verificationism, or anything like that), but I do not mean to challenge your removal of it from the exposition. I could have cited Haas, and maybe I should have, but then I figured the most relevant sources for the content were the actual historical sources, seeing as Haas is just giving a survey as a preliminary to his own new theory, and I did not directly quote from or paraphrase Haas. I hope this clears some things up. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The machine-generated version of the lede implied that verifiability was intended to demarcate science from "pseudo-science". This wasn't really a stated objective of the logical positivist movement, which was mainly to address the ambiguities associated with metaphysical language. The text is either ambiguating this with Popper's discourses on falsifiability (through inferences or abstractions that may or may not be warranted) or reflecting a non-consensus position that doesn't belong in an introduction to the topic.

The article has been restructured quite significantly and and around a quarter of the original content has been rewritten. The remainder still needs extensive source-checking +/- copy-editing. You've changed some title headings and tightened up one or two sentences, but feel free to continue contributing. If you do use machine-generated content, what I recommend is that you state this in your edit summary. Watchman21 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Revision links for context

To make it easier for editors who might be interested in revising the article towards removal of the "AI-generated" template, I am linking here some revisions that are relevant to the current state of the article (2026-01-26, 15:07 UTC).

• 25 September 2025, before any revisions by Thiagovscoelho
• 28 November 2025, after revisions by Thiagovscoelho
• 6 January 2025, after initial edits by Watchman21, before any further edits which resulted in the current page

Since Watchman21 has clarified above that the template was added due to the 28 November revisions, this may make it easier to assess suspicions of "hallucination". For instance, when trying to review this article, I thought this sentence sounded insufficiently encyclopedic in tone: Logical positivists too adopted the criterion, even as their movement ran its course, catapulting Popper, initially a contentious misfit, to carry the richest philosophy out of interwar Vienna. Yes, the tone here might be off, and should likely be edited, but that sentence was already present in the article before any recent revisions, so this cannot be one of the problems that led to the template. Thiagovscoelho (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you clarify how much you've fact-checked the content for yourself prior to publishing it and how much user input or prompting went into generating it. That may be more helpful than just challenging others to find fault with it if it is machine generated. ~2026-16359-0 (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course I checked that all content was supported by the cited sources, and Wikipedia-compliant, guiding the inclusion of content by Gordian Haas's survey as I explained (for instance, the Heidegger example that "Nothingness nothings" is given by Haas, but I sourced it from a different source that I found online). I do not remember many more details on how I produced the content back in November. "Challenging others to find fault with" content (if they wish to remove it) is simply how Wikipedia works, and Watchman21 has already claimed to find fault with the content; if upon your own review, you can yourself find no fault (as I can myself find none), then you may, by Wikipedia policy, remove the maintenance template until Watchman21 (or someone else) challenges the content in more detail (pointing out specific issues with the writing style, sourcing of claims, etc). Thiagovscoelho (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey bro

@serena. The flower ~2026-18665-15 (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Serena❤️

hello there your so cute 😍 ~2026-18665-15 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2026 (UTC)