Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

WP:BURDEN clarification of meaning or language

For background, Wikipedia:Teahouse#Adding_content_without_a_citation.

Seeking comment on what the precise meaning of "All content must be verifiable" is?

Does this mean that all content added to Wikipedia must have a reliable source immediately added at the time the content is added? Inline? Only content that is "likely to be challenged" must always immediately have a reliable sourced added inline, at the time it is added to Wikipedia?

Thank you to all who have participated in this discussion previously, and my apologies, but I really wanted to get clarification on this. It was too much for the Teahouse, and I believe this talk page is actually the best location for it, probably where I should have started it.

Courtesy ping to @Voorts @11WB @Tarlby @Sohom Datta (apologies if I missed anyone). Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 21:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I advised you not to restart this at a third venue. You've had clarification from two administrators and multiple editors now, this attempt to analyse semantics is a waste of editor time. 11WB (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let's read that sentence in its context:

All content must be verifiable. A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

"All content must be verifiable" means that there must be an extant source in order to keep content in an article, even if it isn't presently cited. WP:BURDEN then goes on to say that "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". This means that if you add material to an article, you must show (demonstrate) that it is verifiable (i.e., that a source exists). The way to show that a source exists is to add a citation. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Please note that I am subscribed to this discussion and there is no need to ping me every time you reply.) voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry about that voorts. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable you think to add some of this language to this policy page? I am not saying any of you are wrong, I hope that is clear, I am just saying that if we could add it to the policy page as you've all clearly understood it to mean, then I'd appreciate that. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clear. Unless other editors are having similar misunderstandings, we shouldn't change longstanding consensus language. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am most hung up over "even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment." Why even allow that event to ever occur? Is there legitimate justification for ever permitting, "no citation for it in the article at the moment"? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Fundamentally, the reason is that the community has rejected multiple attempts to have any sort of "everything must be cited" rule. We have, over the years, managed to get consensus that four categories (the WP:MINREF types) should eventually acquire inline citations. With the exception of (a) contentious BLP content and (b) restoring previously WP:CHALLENGED and blanked material, Wikipedia:There is no deadline for adding the "required" citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We grandfather in content that IP editors/folks unfamiliar with the guidelines have added (or where there when Wikipedia was much more lax). But for all intents and purpose, if you add uncited text, it can be removed by any other editor (and in practise will be "challenged" immediately unless it is something that is unlikely to be challenged -- which is a high bar to clear) Sohom (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

if you add uncited text, it can be removed by any other editor (and in practise will be "challenged" immediately Yes. Editors doing RCP regularly revert unsourced content additions and warn editors for doing so. Admins routinely block those editors who continue after receiving sufficient warnings. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:21, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As a recent changes patroller myself, I've come to learn that the only content that is unsourced that should be removed immediately (at least in the course of RCP) are those additions which clearly can be interpreted to be vandalism, not content which could plausibly be verifiable. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please also revert contentious matter about BLPs. Otherwise, I think you've got a good approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You could likely get away with table sugar is sweet and not have any citation per WP:SKYISBLUE, although a claim about taste differences based on the origin of the sugar based on your knowledge with the hope of eventually finding sources later is not something you would get away without sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts, I think you overstate the requirement. Yes, iff a source needs to be added, then it's the person who wants to add or restore the material that has to do the work. But if a source doesn't need to be added – if the ability to verify it does not actually need to be demonstrated – then that's not relevant.

@Iljhgtn, I think you will find WP:Glossary#verifiable clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take a look at that now. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"likely to be challenged" is basically everything unless you are doing saying the sky is blue (or) doing some very obvious math so yes: all content added to Wikipedia must have a reliable source immediately added at the time the content is added is my interpretation of the policy. Sohom (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "likely to be challenged" standard isn't even mentioned in BURDEN, which refers to adding "all content" and any "material" to an article. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:05, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BURDEN is about "who" cites. Verifiability is about "whether" to cite. BURDEN does not magically override the rest of the WP:V policy to create a requirement that every single fact in every single sentence must have an inline citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Just things that are likely to be challenged then? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are four categories. They're listed in WP:MINREF and in the bulleted list in this policy's lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. All V says is that "each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable." It also says that there are four categories of content that require inline citations. There is no deadline, and the community does not require that every piece of content have a citation or face immediate deletion.

BURDEN is a separate requirement that does not make reference to the four categories of V. It plainly says that if an editor adds any new content to an article, that editor must "demonstrate verifiability". To "demonstrate" means to prove, which is why BURDEN says that that requirement is "satisfied" by adding an inline citation. Presumably, it could also be satisfied by adding a link to the source in your edit summary (although that is not preferred) or adding a general reference and noting that all information in the article is cited to that reference. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BURDEN doesn't matter if there's no need to demonstrate verifiability.

Would it be easier for you if we updated BURDEN's text to say something like this?

"All content must be verifiable. A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment. If the material is not already cited and there is a dispute about whether a source could be cited, then The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No because that would be completely changing what BURDEN means. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BURDEN says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" not "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material listed in the four categories noted above". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those words are not on the page presently, but I assure you that those words are what we meant when we wrote this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, what @voorts said here is, in my view at least, the only logical way this can be interpreted. V is about information being verifiable, BURDEN states that the editor who adds that information must back it up with a source.

(Also just saw @voorts reply from just now. That is exactly what it is.) 11WB (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can uncited material exist? Yes. Should you knowingly add uncited material? No. Sohom (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB, I agree that WP:V is about information being verifiable.

Did you know that material can simultaneously be uncited and verifiable? Read the definitions that I just linked for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that material can simultaneously be uncited and verifiable? - Yes, and not adding that source, should it exist, is just laziness. 11WB (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, does tq not work on this page? 11WB (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know we should not test edits, but testing for 11WB's sake. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it does not @11WB Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:41, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What was broken there? Why did that not work? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't use templates inside wikilinks. It had been done in a different thread, which was effecting the whole page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that makes sense. Thanks @ActivelyDisinterested! 11WB (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB, no, it's not "just laziness", and I wish you'd stop saying that. It's rude.

Sometimes people don't add an inline citation because they know that the material is repeated and cited in other parts of the article. (See also WP:LEADCITE.) Sometimes people don't add an inline citation because they think that what they're adding is too basic for anyone reading that article to have any question about it. This is particularly common with the kind of subject-matter expert whose knowledge is "an inch wide and a mile deep"; they are so far off the top end of the Dunning–Kruger curve that they can't conceive of how little ordinary people know about their field. Sometimes people don't add an inline citation because they had technical difficulties or got interrupted. Sometimes they don't add an inline citation because they know it's true, but they don't have a proper reliable source at hand. Sure, they could come back hours/days/weeks later to add it then, but frankly, sometimes that information is urgent, and I'd rather have an unsourced WP:PARITY statement in an article on some "alternative treatment" for cancer than leave the article saying uncontradicted nonsense in the meantime. None of these are "laziness". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

LEADCITE is an exception.
Why should we keep content just because someone happens to think that some piece of information is obvious?
Technical difficulties or being interrupted aren't really excuses to not add citations. You can choose not to press "publish" if you don't have a citation on hand.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is repeated that is what WP:REFNAME is for, @WhatamIdoing. The information may be repeated, but in longer articles, the same reference can be used more than once, and should be. I apologise if my word choice was offensive there, the point I am making is, it doesn't take much time to just do the extra steps now, rather than wait until later needlessly. 11WB (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes they don't add an inline citation because they know it's true, but they don't have a proper reliable source at hand." - This is WP:OR by the way. 11WB (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not having a source at hand doesn't mean one doesn't exist, nor does it mean other editors would have problems locating one. As the "capital of France" example at WP:OR demonstrates, you are compliant with the policy if there is a "reasonable expectation that editors could find a published, reliable source" supporting your claim. That circles us back to the difference between uncited and verifiable. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60, The onus is not on somebody else to prove that is "difficult" to find a source, but rather on you to prove that is easy to find it (the easiest being to add a citation somehow). By your logic, I can reasonably expect that if I add the statement "CSS fingerprinting can be used to detect browser versions" to a article that you will not revert me. The statement I have made is a obvious one, and for anyone with a sufficient technical background in the field there is a "reasonable expectation that editors could find a published, reliable source" for the statement I just made. Except, if I were to actually make such a edit, I would be immediately reverted and asked to provide a source because it is hard for a average Wikipedian to determine if a source exists for this fact. Sohom (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta, you're right: If you added that sentence to an article, I wouldn't revert it on verifiability grounds, because I have a reasonable expectation that I could find a published, reliable source for it. If you stuck it into the middle of an article like Ballet, then I'd revert it because it was off-topic, but I wouldn't revert it over being uncited.

I think you are conflating what the policy requires and how certain editors react to policy-compliant contributions. It's possible, and not anti-policy, for a person who doesn't know anything about the subject to decide to tag or revert an unsourced contribution. But the fact that someone is allowed to CHALLENGE material that doesn't deserve it doesn't mean that the policy required an inline citation at the time you added it.

I also think you might be overestimating how WP:LIKELY a challenge is. Here's an edit you made two months ago.[1] You added no sources. Nobody's reverted it or challenged it. If it were actually true that if I were to actually make such a edit, I would be immediately reverted and asked to provide a source, then that would have been reverted already. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Regarding the edit you bring up, the citation for it shows up right above the passage that I added and it was already present in the article when I made the edit (Ref 121,122). For what it's worth, I don't think I would have minded if folks had asked for a citation in that context since it was clearly one of my more borderline edits. Sohom (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that someone is allowed to CHALLENGE material that doesn't deserve it doesn't mean that the policy required an inline citation at the time you added it

This point needs to be repeated and emphasized. Many challenges, if not most, occur because an editor simply noticed that you didn't cite your contribution, not because they were unable to cite it for you and not because there truly was a problem with its verifiability. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ at the top of this page says:

Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation?: No. Only four broad categories of material need to be supported by inline citations. Editors need not supply citations for perfectly obvious material. However, it must be possible to provide a bibliographic citation to a published reliable source for all material.

I suppose we could add that to the BURDEN section, but then I think some editors would argue that this overrides the "if it's been CHALLENGED" part of those "four broad categories". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much clearer we can make BURDEN with additional prose. Getting to the point of diminishing returns? If anything, we'd probably want less prose in this section.

Also, it seems like there's a disconnect in the transition to demonstrating verifiability. We first remind what verifiable means and then state how it can be satisfied; by providing an inline citation. But we don't say when it must be satisfied, at least not right away. The term "challenge" is used sporadically elsewhere but curiously not here, other than in the header and an anchor tag. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

REFNAMEs are a fine way to address repeated claims, but Wikipedia:When to cite#When a source or citation may not be needed – which is the standard for sourcing in FAs, and fully compatible with all of our sourcing policies – explains why that's not required.

You should also have a look at Wikipedia:Citation overkill#Needless repetition (the original) and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Consecutive cites of the same source (a copy of the original, in case you feel a need to have it said on a page that also contains a {{guideline}} template).

It is important to distinguish between several states:

Some things are required. For example, uncited or badly sourced contentious matter about BLPs is required to be removed immediately.
Some things are recommended under certain circumstances. For example, I'd recommend adding nothing to an WP:AP2 article or an WP:ARBPIA article without a very good source added at the same time.
Some things are encouraged more generally. For example, many editors encourage others to cite sources more often than is strictly required.
Some things are optional. For example, you don't have to use REFNAMEs; there are several acceptable ways to organize citations.

WP:V requires inline citations for four specific types of material. WP:V does not require inline citations for anything else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All content must be verifiable to some source that exist and is accessible in some many. All quotes, contentious material about living people, and content that is likely to be challenged needs an inline citation to support it. In addition any content that has been challenged (usually by removal) needs an inline citation before it is added back. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:24, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you regularly add content without sources that is challenged it can be seen as disruptive behaviour, the same is true of blanking content without communication.
I've always thought editor should be sceptical about WP:BLUE, are the statements actually BLUE or are they only BLUE in your socio-cultural background. Especially after a very nasty encounter where I was called a idiot for lacking understanding of something that was only obvious if you lived in the country of the other editor (someone who has now thankfully left the project). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The advice I like to give new editors: “Before you add anything to Wikipedia, have a source on hand for it… even for things you think don’t need sourcing.” That way, should another editor demand that you cite a source, you can quickly provide it… and thus avoid having to waste hours trying to convince the other editor it isn’t needed. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is very good advice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very good advice, but the problem we seem to have is a few editors thinking that WP:BURDEN requires an inline citation for everything, even things that don't fall into the four required types. This has come up a few times in the last year or so. While it's mostly the same handful of editors, their persistence with believing that BURDEN imposes this requirement makes me believe that they are unable to understand this contextually.
My goal is basically to move these editors from their current stance:
- Absolutely everything that gets "added" is required to have an inline citation per BURDEN
to the usual refuge of zealous citation enforcers, which sounds something like:
- "Well, there might not technically be a sentence in here that lets me blindly revert anything without a source, but I still think everything should be cited. BTW, just so everyone knows, I believe that every single sentence is WP:LIKELY to get challenged some time between now and the heat death of the universe, so I'm still going to demand an inline citation for absolutely everything that gets added to any article, and there's nothing you can do about that."
What do you think we can do to make the intent of BURDEN clearer to this small group of editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no stance to change. At NPP, if I come across a sentence that lacks a citation, and it isn't the lead, I will add the ^{[citation needed]} tag to it. If it happens more than once, I'll slap Template:More citations needed on the article. 11WB (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From the POV of policy writing, we need all the policies and guidelines to present a coherent set of principles, rules, and advice, so that editors are able to find what they need and to understand their limitations, so that we can prevent or resolve disputes and so that we can produce decent encyclopedia articles (meaning the sentences/paragraphs in the article, rather than the references list; readers almost never read the sources, and the sources are a means to an end, rather than being the end goal).

We teach Wikipedia's rules mostly via the telephone game, which is an appalling method that is prone to severe exaggeration over time, so the written policies and guidelines need to be able to clearly identify limits, in addition to explaining the agreed-upon requirements and the hoped-for results. That way, even though the rumors develop from "I think it might be nice in this one article if we ____" through a few iterations to "All policies require that ____ in all articles or you will be blocked this directly minute, you WP:BAD WP:DISRUPTIVE WP:EVIL WP:NOTHERE WP:VANDAL!", people can come back to the written policies and guidelines to find out what the community has really agreed to, which sometimes turns out to be quite different from the distorted rumor that someone was (often unwittingly) spreading. Which means: When the written rules say "Here's an optional suggestion", and someone tells you "The WP:UPPERCASE policy demands you do this", then reading WP:UPPERCASE should be able to set you straight about any differences between what the community wrote in the rules and what the individual editor (mis)told you.

But if the policy or other UPPERCASE isn't clear on some detail, or if it too tempting to quote it partially or out of context, then we need to identify and fix these problems. In this case, I think that the point of BURDEN probably needs to be made a little clearer.

In this policy's area, we want to maximize the use of inline citations and the quality of the sources. Additionally, we need to support the ideal of a collaborative project, to minimize the potential for drama over who has to do the work of citing sources, and to have editors remember that the perfect is the enemy of good. When we combine these competing goals, the result is that this policy:
requires that it be possible to find a reliable source that could be cited for absolutely all article content,

requires that the sources meet some minimal standards for quality,

requires the inline citation of some sources in most parts of most articles, and

stops people from claiming "Not it!" when those sources are required.

The rest is aspiration, not requirement. (Also, it repeats the requirement in WP:BLP about removing unsourced and poorly sourced content, but that's really BLP's rule rather than WP:V's.)

According to this policy, you are allowed to tag anything that's uncited (including in the lead). But if you voluntarily wanted to only tag things that were already required to have an inline citation, then you would only be tagging uncited content that is a direct quotation or that you believe has a greater than 50% chance of getting blanked or tagged later and none of the already cited sources covered it. You should be removing (rather than tagging) all uncited contentious matter about BLPs, and you don't need to tag anything that's already CHALLENGED because someone else has already done that.

TL;DR: If the current wording of BURDEN makes editors incorrectly think that this policy requires an inline citation for all "additions" to articles, then we should change the wording of BURDEN to help them understand what we actually meant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful not to WP:WALLOFTEXT. I've personally hit an impasse here. I am not understanding whether the argument here is that unsourced content should be allowed on Wikipedia (which it should not!), or something else entirely. You've lost me. If you think BURDEN should be reworded, start an RfC. 11WB (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then listen to WhatamIdoing. Not everything needs a citation. Everything that a reasonable person would reasonably think needs to have a citation needs a citation. The person adding the info should think about the reader, and a person looking at the information added should also consider the editor who added it. No one's effort should be wasted pedantically citing things that are readily verifiable, like "X song by Y artist appeared on Z movie soundtrack". I have found cn tags on blindingly easy to verify bits of info like that, and I'm inclined to just remove them because it's not worth the hassle of an inline citation. Jclemens (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When something that is “blindingly easy to verify” is tagged, removing the tag will result in pointless argument. Rather than spend hours (or even days) trying to explain why a citation isn’t needed, it is far less of a hassle to simply “Let the Wookie Win” and slap in a citation. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was that time when someone slapped a fact tag on a statement about the human hand having five digits. Nobody disagreed when that tag was just reverted. But I agree that as a general rule, it's faster to add a source than to argue about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB, let's start with your statement I am not understanding whether the argument here is that unsourced content should be allowed on Wikipedia (which it should not!), or something else entirely.

Here are two statements, and I wonder whether you agree or disagree with them:

Our sourcing policies say that uncited content is allowed on Wikipedia.
Our sourcing polices also say that impossible-to-cite content is not allowed on Wikipedia.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, and again I apologise for causing offence yesterday, but I really don't wish to continue going over semantics. It is not a productive use of time. BURDEN is quite clear that 'all content must be verifiable.' That's it. There are no loopholes, no ways around it. If you add content to Wikipedia, it needs to be backed up by a source. 11WB (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about semantics. This is about what "All content must be verifiable" means. Specifically, it's about whether that sentence means "It must be possible for someone to find a source for any piece of content upon request" or "An inline citation must already be provided for any piece of content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer concrete questions, then take a look at the draft in User:WhatamIdoing/Christmas candy and tell me what percentage of the article is verifiable right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a draft, not in mainspace. 11WB (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So? Pretend that I moved it to the mainspace. How much of that complies with the requirement in this policy that "All content must be verifiable"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:52, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unreferenced 11WB (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, whilst I can appreciate your attempts to analyse each individual facet of these policies, the reality is content needs to be verifiable. Two different administrators have explained this. @voorts says this here and @Sodium says it here. I've personally only taken that view in these discussions. It would be good to remember that this recent revival of this discussion evolved from an editor who was denied AP due to not adding sources to their articles, a direct violation of WP:V. If you believe there is an issue with how these policies are worded, you should open an RfC at an appropriate venue. Continuing to argue semantics here is not productive and will not result in any changes. This will be the last response I give on this thread, as I no longer wish to go back and forth when I've already made my view quite clear. 11WB (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 11WB, and as 11WB just said, I was recently denied in my request for autopatrol, with this reason being provided for my denial, "a good grasp of the notability guidelines is one aspect of WP:APCRITERIA. The fact that you've written articles without adding citations to whole sections of articles is a problem. I'm going to decline AP at this time. Please focus on ensuring that all articles you write going forward comply with WP:V."

I had created some articles, especially in my earlier editing days, which had some sections lacking a source here or there even though the majority of such pages were cited with inline citations and met WP:GNG but in some cases I intended to come back to a section and later add more inline citations and references to any sections which might have been found lacking for whatever reason. Some of these were from years ago, and none of them were tagged as "citation needed" or challenged in any way and furthermore did not qualify for WP:MINREF as I understood it. Anyway, this kicked off a discussion around WP:V, and since I've been around long enough to have now learned a thing or two about the WP:PG and nuance related to verifiability, it was a detailed discussion. That said, I believe all parties made constructive and respectful comments.

I think my understanding of the WP:V actually does incorporate all of the complexity and nuance of WP:MINREF, so I was not quite sure what to do about that other than to try and respond and seek clarification. Based on the above (and below), it seems to me that the understanding of, "All content must be verifiable" is still very much up for some debate among some editors here. I understand it along the lines of "all content must be capable of having a source added that could verify the claim of the content, whenever possible, that source should be added, factoring for WP:MINREF. It is not required that a source be added inline, immediately, at all times, but it is a really good idea and is also likely encouraged."

That is what I understood then, and this discussion reaffirms to me that this may still be the correct understanding now.

At the risk of repeating myself, it seems to me to be a really great idea to always cite sources and do so inline whenever possible, but one unique aspect of Wikipedia is that it is a work in progress, the unfinished puzzle logo, and it is not required that the source be added immediately and inline, when factoring for WP:MINREF.

It might be helpful to further clarify this with some modifications of language in the relevant sections of WP:V. I am supportive of @WhatamIdoing's suggestions and mostly am in agreement with that editor's comments around the meaning of "all content must be verifiable." Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 22:29, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@11WB, you're missing the point.

You say that content needs to be verifiable.
Voorts says that content needs to be verifiable.
Sohom says that content needs to be verifiable.
Iljhgtn says that content needs to be verifiable.
I say that content needs to be verifiable.
This policy says that content needs to be verifiable.
Everyone says that content needs to be verifiable.

Now that we've got that out of the way, the question is: What does "being verifiable" actually mean, in your opinion? You have not "already made my view quite clear"; you have dodged the question repeatedly.

Just so you know, I've been supporting the development of this policy (and many others) for over 15 years now, and I am one of the all-time top contributors to it. I already know the processes for making changes to it. What I don't know is what you believe the definition of verifiable is, and specifically whether your definition of verifiable is meaningfully distinct from the definition of cited. For example, you note that my draft about Christmas candy is unreferenced. Does that mean that you think it is unverifiable? Or is it perhaps 100% verifiable in addition to being 100% uncited? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've answered your own question. 'All content needs to be verifiable.' I don't know what else you are expecting me to say here. Cite your sources, otherwise the content will be tagged or removed, full stop. Please don't ping me back to this discussion, I am tired of discussing semantics with you. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So your answer is "uncited content is the same thing as unverifiable content"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I invite you to consider the fact that this policy disagrees with you. Specifically, see the sentence that says A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to answer hypotheticals or engage in unnecessary analysis of specific words. Everything requires a source by procedure, that is now NPP operates in the application of banners/tags or content removal. Unsourced content is WP:OR. Uncited articles are not kept in mainspace for very long, and when they are they have likely just been missed. 11WB (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to this policy and according to NOR, everything doesn't require a source to be cited. Have you actually read any the words that we (I) wrote at the top of WP:OR? Pay particular attention to the sentence that says Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy. It's right there in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is looping because we are viewing this in entirely different ways. For some reason you have felt the need to zero in on words and every possible meaning they can have. This is just a process, not some massive thing that needs to be picked apart. Content needs to be cited. and if it isn't, it gets tagged or removed. There isn't some giant conspiracy here. It is a very basic process that I follow and others who review articles follow. 11WB (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever said this before, but to bring about a swift resolution to our one-on-one back and forth, I think I'll just invoke WP:IAR. The way I operate at NPP, when it comes to making sure content is sourced, keeps Wikipedia in a more reliable state in the long run. I'll also invoke WP:5P5 where it says 'policy and guideline content and interpretation can evolve over time.' 11WB (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would just WP:BLAR that article or add a citation from my end. For what it's worth coming from a global-majority country I did not associate the word "candy cane" with that sweet and while it seems obvious I would definitely want a source to back it up. Also, I would ask what Christmas candy means in this context since I would also associate the sweet with Halloween and other days of the holiday season. Sohom (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is editors not adding sourcing when they should. It might be that a few editors misunderstand BURDEN, but that's not the general issue that is faced by the encyclopedia. The issue of unsourced and disruptive edits far outweighs any misunderstanding, as seen in articles and noticeboards across the project. A few out of place CN tags are a very minor worry in comparison. I would also note that if the community wants one thing and policy says another, it's policy not community that's meant to change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one of our problems is experienced editors not having a shared understanding of what the sourcing requirements are. This lack of understanding leads to disruptive edits. A few unnecessary {{citation needed}} tags are a minor problem (at most), but arguments in articles and noticeboards across the projects because some editors believe that verifiABLE means "able to verify" and other editors believe that it means "already has a little blue clicky number" causes bigger problems, especially wrt the effect that this contradictory advice has on newcomers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Folks this is simple:

1) All material must be Verifiable… but…

2) Verifiable is not the same as cited.

3) There are four types that must cited… and… of those types, the one that causes debate is “challenged or likely to be challenged”.

4) Now - whether something is “likely” to be challenged is a bit of a judgement call, and sometimes our judgement is that it is unlikely… so we don’t cite… however…

5) sometimes it turns out our judgement was wrong, and the material actually IS challenged.

6) Once something IS challenged, a citation becomes required. THAT is what BURDEN is about. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From how I've always interpreted V: Except for the 4 criteria, you don't need to cite your content, but it's not going to stay like that forever... or even a few seconds probably, so just cite it to save the trouble. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 03:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blueboar's description, and I agree with Toby that it's better when you are adding content to voluntarily err on the side of citing more than is required. I would only add that when someone else is adding content, we shouldn't demand that other people exceed the minimum requirements. This is a variation on Postel's law: Do more than you have to, but accept less than perfection from others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar, steps two through six are irrelevant/unnecessary. The policy states what you put in step one, and that is where WP:V's relevance ends, at least from a process POV. Everything you've outlined after that is just content disputes. 11WB (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I do want to exit this discussion, but I've been pinged back here... If @WhatamIdoing starts an RfC, I will give my opinion on wording there. This discussion is not going to result in policy rewordings, which is why I haven't engaged in analysing semantics here. Until that time, for me, it is simply enforcement of process at NPP. 11WB (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion could result in this policy being reworded. Almost none of the changes to policies and guidelines actually have an RFC behind them. RFCs are only used when the proposal is large or a significant departure from the generally understood meaning.

Or, to put it in concrete terms, the last time there was an RFC on this policy was over a year ago, and there have been 200 edits to this policy in the last year. It's been more than three years since we needed an RFC to update this policy, if you don't count the one by the POV pusher that we indeffed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I think it comes down to: Per WP:V, anything that is challenged or likely to be challenged requires a citation. Under normal circumstances this means that you're at the point where you're arguing over something then it needs a citation; and it usually doesn't require more thought than that. There's an unspoken implication of "don't go around demanding citations for stuff that is completely uncontroversial, unexceptional, unlikely to be challenged and so on" but it's hard to imagine someone getting in trouble for using a lot of citation needed tags. The one caveat is that I think V carries an unspoken implication that the challenges must be in good faith; the only real situation where someone is likely to get in trouble for demanding a citation is if they breach that presumption, eg. they're demanding frivolous and excessive citations with the clear intent of WP:HOUNDing someone, or very obviously slapping every statement on an article with {{citation needed}} just because they hate the article and want to make it look bad, and not because they actually genuinely intend to challenge those specific statements. Basically, for demanding citations to cross the line you'd have to be able to convincingly argue that someone is adding citation needed tags without a genuine intent to challenge the specific statement they're tagging, but for some other (bad-faith) reason. That would normally be a very serious (and hard-to-prove) accusation for WP:AGF reasons, though I think it does happen occasionally. --Aquillion (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a few editors blocked for bad faith challenges, but they were obviously hounding. Usually after disagreements on other articles and acting out some sort of 'revenge'. I think it's important to assume good faith usually though, as readers shouldn't have to learn every aspect of policy WORDSALAD to challenge something they know to be wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up, I think we've got a few options:

We could kick the can down the road again, and have a version of this conversation several more times this year. I'd like to firmly discourage that option.
We could make some subtle changes. I think that won't solve the problem of editors incorrectly believing that whatever someone told them is The Sole Truth™ about Wikipedia's policies.
We could hang a great big sign on this policy that says sources aren't required (except when they are). I think that would be an overreaction and a gift to POV pushers and especially OR creators.

I'd like to suggest something in between 2 and 3, but the regulars here know my preference for smaller changes, so maybe closer to 2.3 than to 2.5. I think the changes will need to be made directly in the WP:BURDEN section, and probably to the bold sentence itself.

Here are some severable possibilities (without the footnotes, which I've removed to make the diff simpler):

We could also look at additions to address what Aquillion points out:

Or to clarify the unsourced-article problem:

The regulars here know that I would rather be writing something different for that last item, but I accept that the community's consensus does not match my personal preference on this point, so I also add this possibility:

I'm sure that if we spent more time thinking about it, we could come up with better wording, but what do you think about the substance? Which of these is the most important? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing, I am going to attempt to answer your question in a different way. If I see content on Wikipedia that is unsourced at NPP, I will challenge it immediately (as laid out) and add a tag to it (or apply a relevant banner to the article itself). So basically I enforce BURDEN as soon as I see unsourced content. I really hope that this answers your question finally and that I can exit this discussion. 11WB (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the community adopted the policy position that "Excessive demands for citations, including demands that everything in many articles be cited, is disruptive", would you stop that behavior? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it being labelled as a behaviour? I simply follow NPP process. See this comment from @Sodium. 11WB (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am in no way 'excessively demanding citations', and it certainly isn't disruptive. I am simply following WP:BURDEN as a process at NPP. If content lacks a citation, I apply a tag or banner that has been designed specifically for that situation... 11WB (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is your behavior being labeled as a behavior? Because behavior is a word that describes a response to a stimulus.

No policy requires a citation for all unsourced content. NPP shouldn't have a process that sets a higher standard than the actual sourcing policies. Looking at its standard advice, I see that it says "Unsourced articles can be tagged", which is materially different from "If you see content on Wikipedia that is unsourced at NPP, challenge it immediately. If content lacks a citation, apply a tag or banner".

I don't think that you are actually "enforcing BURDEN". I think you are enforcing your incorrect belief that BURDEN requires 100% citations, which it doesn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, WP:IAR and WP:5P5 allows for certain interpretations of policy if it helps improve Wikipedia. I would think making sure all content is reliably sourced would be beneficial, not the reverse and definitely not disruptive, which you seem to think. 11WB (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said at length above, our personal desire for 100% citations has to be balanced against the community's other needs (like not making contributing so tedious that people would rather quit than deal with yet another self-appointed rule enforcer). Tagging and blanking content doesn't always "help improve Wikipedia" in the end. It can, in fact, be disruptive. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have never actually performed a WP:BLAR, you can check my page curation log and editing history if you don't believe me. This is the process I follow:

I spot unsourced content whilst patrolling.
I apply a ^{[citation needed]} tag after the content if it only occurs in that article once OR I apply one of two banners to the article itself: Template:More citations needed if there are multiple occurrences of unsourced text or Template:Unreferenced if the article lacks citations entirely.
I do not mark those articles as reviewed, I leave feedback and instructions for the author using the page curator tool and then I move on to next article.

If you believe this is disruptive, I think we have almost certainly reached an impasse, and I am honestly speechless if you believe that is disruptive. 11WB (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove content if it violates WP:CLOP and almost certainly if it violates CLOP and is unsourced. 11WB (talk) 06:49, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support of something along the lines of 2.3-2.5 as @WhatamIdoing suggests above. "kick[ing] the can down the road again..." is never a good plan. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 06:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that tries to further loophole the general principle of sourcing our edits is creating new cans to kick down the road. CMD (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The three options @WhatamIdoing posited here do exactly that. Option 1 (which is this discussion) is a waste of editor time. Option 2 is unnecessary and will only lead to more disagreements once somebody realises certain words have been changed. Option 3 would be foolish for the exact reasons @WAID said themself. The best option is to just cite your sources so that reviewers like myself don't have to add tags/banners to articles, and just move on with our lives! 11WB (talk) 07:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The community has repeatedly rejected proposals to "just cite your sources so that reviewers like myself don't have to add tags/banners to articles". Therefore, "just cite your sources so that reviewers like myself don't have to add tags/banners to articles" is not an available option. We have to work within the limits of community consensus. If we say "just cite your sources so that reviewers like myself don't have to add tags/banners to articles", then it "will only lead to more disagreements once somebody realises certain words have been changed" (and rightly so, in the opinion of anyone who supports the consensus model of decision making).

The community's consensus AIUI is:

Some but not all content is required to have an inline citation:
- All direct quotations need an inline citation, but there is no set deadline for supplying the required source.
- All WP:CHALLENGED material (e.g., fact-tagged) needs an inline citation, and there is a variable deadline for supplying that source.
  - Specifically, there is no deadline for addressing a fact tag, but if the material is blanked as part of a non-vandalistic/genuine challenge to its verifiability, then it "should not" be restored without also adding an inline citation. (NB: that's should, rather than must, and that this "loophole" is deliberate, because vandals, vengeful editors, POV pushers, etc. also exist.)
- All material that you believe is WP:LIKELY (>50% chance) to get CHALLENGED needs an inline citation, but there is no set deadline for supplying that required source.
- All contentious matter about BLPs is required to have an inline citation to a decent source, and the deadline is "immediately", as in "must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion".
Some but not most new articles are required to name a source:
- All BLPs created after 18 March 2010 must name one source, though this does not need to be in the form of an inline citation and it does not need to demonstrate notability. "Alice Expert is an expert" followed by an ==External link== to www.aliceexpert.com is sufficient to meet this requirement.
- Non-BLP articles do not have to name any sources at all. (If someone wants to change this, feel free to drop a note on my talk page. I have some ideas about why previous proposals failed.)
Sometimes there is a procedure for settling who has to do the work:
- If editors are fighting about who has to find a source and put it on the page, then it's the person who wants to keep the content, and not the one who wants to remove it. However, everyone is encouraged to add sources, even if they don't "have to".
  - This is partly because we dislike WP:BOGO systems, but also because the editor who wants to remove it might do a bad job at looking for sources (deliberately or otherwise – you wouldn't necessarily expect a POV pusher to recognize sources that disagree with their POV are actually reliable).
- A CHALLENGE and the resulting BURDEN requires the editor who wants to keep the content to supply just one (1) source. That one source must be a source that they (not anyone else) believe is reliable. Other editors are not allowed to play an endless game of WP:FETCH because Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and not an opportunity for self-appointed busybodies to set up hoops for other WP:VOLUNTEERS to jump through.
  - However, just because someone supplied a source that they believe to be reliable doesn't mean that they're right. If editors reach a consensus that it's not reliable, then the source and – assuming nobody else can easily find a decent source – the content can be removed. But after that first editor's first attempt, finding a reliabale source is everyone's job.
  - Even if everyone agrees that the source is reliable, that doesn't mean the content should be kept in this article (or at all).

If you don't agree that this is the community's consensus, then I'd be interested in seeing links to discussions that show the opposite.

If you do recognize this as the community's consensus, then the task here is to write something that clearly explains the community's consensus, both on the sides we like (please, just spam some sources in there) and the sides we don't like (okay, so technically not everything needs an inline citation...). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WALLOFTEXT. I cannot support the idea that not citing sources is permissible. 11WB (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant question here isn't whether you support it. The question is whether you recognize this as a description of the community's consensus, which differs from your own (and my) preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this (common) situation. I add a substantial paragraph to an existing article and correctly cite it at the end of the paragraph. Someone later comes along and adds a sentence to the middle of the paragraph citing that one sentence to a different source. Because the beginning of the paragraph is now wrongly cited someone adds {{cn}}. May some third party remove the start of the paragraph on grounds that the WP:BURDEN was on me to cite it? Or what? Should I have cited each sentence or each phrase? Thincat (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally yes, but you'd be ok. WP:TIND means that no editor can enforce WP:BURDEN in any venue.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TIND is also an essay. 11WB (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but it's an essay about policy and it expresses a fact about policy. The fact is this: You can be required to source your edits, but you can't be required to source your edits now. And you can't be required to source your edits this year, or next year, or this decade. And nobody can revert or delete them even if there's widespread agreement that they're problematic and sanctionable.
If you doubt this, try deleting an inadequately-sourced lugstub.
TIND is the right rule, even though I find it annoying when people who're blatantly abusing the encyclopaedia weaponize it. The alternative would be a rule that Bob can follow Alice around reverting every single unsourced edit, and we have to deal with volunteers who do that.
S Marshall's perfect version of this rule would look something like this: Finding sources is everyone's job. You can only remove material written by another editor if you've made a proper, good-faith search for sources and found none. If you do remove easily-sourceable material then you will be pilloried at the Village Pump and sneered at until you're sorry, and if you do it again you might be blocked.
This rule only applies to material written by other editors. You're welcome to remove material that was written by you, or material written by a LLM, or material you reasonably suspect to have been written by a LLM, without restriction.
Unfortunately I don't get to make the rules, so this wise and excellent approach will never be adopted.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
TIND isn't relevant then, as I don't remove unsourced content, I apply tags or banners. I explained my NPP process for unsourced content here. 11WB (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Might not be relevant to you, but I meant that for Thincat. Thincat might or might not remove unsourced content but he has an interest in this because he writes content. An activity which I commend to everyone, by the way.—S Marshall T/C 22:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your statement that TIND prohibits patrollers from challenging unsourced content. That is not correct. TIND and WP:TIAD are essays. If @Thincat contributes content and articles to Wikipedia, I fully support that. However at the same time, I would reasonably expect them to find sources for what they wrote, so that others don't have to spend time either adding those sources in themself, contacting @Thincat to add those sources or tagging the content as unsourced when it should be sourced. 11WB (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout this conversation, I've felt that you and I are not communicating very effectively. If that's my fault, then I apologise, but I want to clarify that in this section, I am not talking about NPP, and I am not talking about you. Please do not take this personally.
It is true that TIND is an essay. But it is an essay that describes a feature of policy. The feature of policy that it describes is that although you must source your edits, there is no particular timescale in which you must do so. When I say "TIND", I do not mean the essay-rated page, but the feature of policy that is that page's subject.—S Marshall T/C 14:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a disconnect between how myself and others such as @WAID are interpreting these policies. I don't understand the need to over analyse and attempt to add detailed bullet points and sections to existing policies that function fine. Introducing all of this unnecessary verbiage will, as @Amakuru said, permit content outside of MINREF to be uncited.

These proposed changes will have a pretty serious effect on patrolling and will cause Wikipedia to be less reliable in the long-term. I cannot reasonably support something that is detrimental to the project. Unfortunately, and I say this respectfully, whilst @WAID agrees that all content needs to be verifiable, such a lax view on not immediately citing sources, is very worrying. 11WB (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, 11WB, I think you are misunderstanding what @WhatamIdoing has been saying almost this entire thread. WAID does not want to change anything about the policy as it stands but merely has suggested to add or modify some language slightly in such a way so that it clarifies existing policy for a clearer and more obvious understanding for all.

@WhatamIdoing if I am putting words in your mouth or myself misinterpreting what you have been saying, please feel free to correct me. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 15:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@WAID proposed the following be added:

'Editors are encouraged to voluntarily exceed the minimum requirements for their own contributions. However, editors should not misrepresent the minimum requirements of this policy (e.g., by falsely claiming that all additions of content must be cited, or by wrongly telling new editors that this policy requires all new articles to cite enough sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable).' - This permits uncited content outside of MINREF.

'Frivolous or excessive demands for citations, including both demands that favor one viewpoint and frequent demands that everything in many articles be cited, is disruptive.' - This states that reviewers, such as myself, who apply tags or banners to uncited content is disruptive. (Which it absolutely isn't in any way. We are simply doing what is expected.)

These additions would be detrimental to Wikipedia in a large way, which is why myself and others have opposed them. 11WB (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mostly in the minority here actually, and earlier you had stated your mistaken understanding of "all content must be verifiable" to mean that all content must be cited. You've effectively been trying to push a new policy or to alter existing policy to require citations on every line of content, which is not, and never has been the WP:PG on Wikipedia. If consensus does end up support this change to longstanding Wikipedia policy, so be it, but as of right now no one is suggesting a change to policy, merely clarifications so that such mistaken understandings do not persist. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 15:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
11WB,
This policy already permits uncited content outside of MINREF. It always has. The fact that it already permits this appears to have escaped your notice.

I hope that neither you nor any other reviewers are making Frivolous or excessive demands for anything.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Iljhgtn, I disagree that I'm in the minority. Multiple editors, including at least one admin have voiced their opposition to @WAID's proposals.

If this is making "excessive demands" then I really don't know what to say. Clearly the way myself and others patrol is very "disruptive". 11WB (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said that all tagging is always frivolous or excessive. The kind of tagging that is frivolous or excessive is (potentially) disruptive; the kind of tagging that is not frivolous or excessive (probably) isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda. If you challenge something under WP:V, you have the option to remove it immediately - TIND means you're not required to do so, but V clearly allows it (Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.) Once you've removed it, anyone else who revert-wars it back in without an inline source is clearly violating both WP:V (it has been challenged, so if they want to re-add it it must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material) and WP:BURDEN (they're the one who has to produce the citation.) TIND provides no support for that revert whatsoever. Even if we assumed TIND had wide acceptance, it only protects inaction, it can't possibly protect actual actions - it allows someone to avoid having to personally remove the text in question by saying "well, there's no rush to remove it", but doesn't change the fact that they're violating policy by restoring it. In fact, they're violating TIND by restoring it, because they're rushing to re-add something (there's no rush to restore it, either!) Basically, TIND is an argument for leaving an article in a policy-violating state (assuming the issue isn't pressing, like BLP-sensitive stuff); it's never a valid argument for a revert that puts an article back in a policy-violating state. --Aquillion (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this analysis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support minor changes to burden, somewhere between subtle (2) and overboard (3). I like the first option presented, as it addresses a point I raised above, although there's probably still room for improvement in the 1st sentence. Perhaps a simpler change from "could be cited" to "could be located and cited" would suffice.
Also, how does this impact the rest of the section? Is there an opportunity to trim back? The taller the wall, the harder it is to see over. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think there are some small-ish opportunities to shorten the section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 15:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I could support something similar to the first change, but maybe not those words. The rest are unnecessary or counterproductive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I editors want to create new policies or guidance I suggest they take it to the village pump. It a long time since an editor could just create their own new guideline without prior discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PROPOSAL, discussions about whether to designated a page as a new policy or guideline is supposed to be made on the Wikipedia_talk: page for the proposed page, instead of the village pumps. One of the reasons for this is that some proposals reappear periodically, and we want the prior failures to be easily found, not lost in the village pump archives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't discussions about whether to designated a page as a new policy or guideline it's CREEP on a pre-existing policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No one is proposing new policy. The discussion is around modifying language to ensure that there is clarity and understanding of existing policy, which based on this discussion, is not at all present with the status quo. This situation demands a remedy. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 14:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed additions are new instructions that editors would have to follow that's CREEP. This situation doesn't need any remedy, as other than a few editors misunderstanding current policy, which could be clarified by simple discussion, no critical problem has been shown. As I said previously the much large problem the encyclopedia suffers is editors adding unsourced content (that should be sourced by current policy) not the other way round. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem that I would like to solve:

Some editors believe that the bolded sentence in BURDEN both should and already does require anyone who "adds" any content whatsoever to provide an inline citation for that added material. Their view differs from the community consensus, which says that four types of content need inline citations and the rest doesn't.

Previous efforts to address the problem: The error (namely that the policy does require this) has not been cleared up "by simple discussion". In "simple discussion", editors holding the belief that the policy already does require this are firmly entrenched in their view.

Why we have this problem: I believe that their belief that this sentence does impose this requirement is based on a (perfectly fair and reasonable) belief that this policy should impose this requirement, and since it is so obviously right for this policy to have this requirement, then the fact that other sentences (e.g., the one right before it...) directly contradict this idea is unimportant or mere accident. I believe this is the last sentence in this policy that is getting twisted to support this view.

Unwanted results of this problem: New editors are being given false information about what this policy actually requires. False rumors about what this policy actually requires are being spread. The community's repeatedly expressed consensus (to date; consensus can change) is being rejected by editors who want to enforce a higher standard on other contributors than what the larger community has agreed to.

Possibly effective solution: IMO nothing except a change to the sentence they quote is likely to change their minds about what that sentence (and therefore this policy) says. Another approach is to add a sentence to the top that says "Other content is not required to have a citation". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I originally said I would support some change so editors better understand the policy, just not the additional sentences that appear to be scope creep. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest for wording @ActivelyDisinterested? Lets see some suggestions please. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 20:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, after the robust and extensive replies, I can't say I'm very interested in interacting here. So for sake of process let's say I support the wording for the first change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:26, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Actually scratch that, the first addition is nonsense. One of the four criteria is if content has been challenged, and if the situation has reached a point where BURDEN is applicable then the content has been challenged. So the addition is both redundant and confusing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo is untenable, which is why we have had such "robust and extensive replies" from @WhatamIdoing and others. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with my dislike of the wording, your feelings on the status quo are not my concern. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested, which kind of nonsense?

Do you think that adding the words "If material is disputed or falls into one of the four categories listed above, then..." actually changes the BURDEN rule, or that it's so obviously already the BURDEN rule that it's unnecessary verbiage?

If the latter, and I showed you proof that some editors firmly believe that it's not already the BURDEN rule and that adding these words would constitute a change (specifically, a narrowing) to the BURDEN rule, would you still consider it to be unnecessary verbiage? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BURDEN applies to challenged content, saying it only applies to challenged content makes no sense and is redundant. Maybe the wording needs to changed but it should make sense. You've shown a few editors misunderstand BURDEN, it's also very apparent from editors restoring content without sourcing that many don't understand it the other way. I don't see that such a change as suggested is necessary, or that they way you describe is more impressive than the other. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think would be a sensible way of communicating to editors – specifically, to those experienced editors who personally believe that no fact should be added to a Wikipedia article without an inline citation and are firmly determined that WP:V itself should, must, and already does agree with their personal belief on that point – that BURDEN only applies to challenged content and/or does not constitute a rule that every fact added to the mainspace today requires an inline citation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe simply add to the beginning of BURDEN that it applies to challenged content. BURDEN shouldn't deal with the nature of the challenge, as any challenge is valid. The community has been evidently in favour of stronger verification practices, policy should follow that. Weakening, or giving the appearance of weakening, BURDEN is very much the wrong way to go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that "If material is disputed or falls into one of the four categories listed above, then..." was "simply adding to the beginning of BURDEN that it applies to challenged content".

Looking at it now, this wording would actually say that BURDEN applies to challenged plus three other kinds of content, so it's stronger than just "applies to challenged content".

What wording would you use to tell people that BURDEN applies only to challenged content? As a matter of defense against wikilawyering, I think it would be better to have it be part of the same sentence. Otherwise, we can expect editors to sometimes "forget" to mention that the preceding sentence contradicts their argument. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It will increase wikilayering. There are already many "your challenge doesn't count", with this that will become "your challenge doesn't count, so BURDEN doesn't apply". The suggested changes doesn't just simply add that BURDEN applies to challenged content, it makes it worse, more confusing and weaker. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We've already got wikilawyering. People who claim "your challenge doesn't count" are easily (and frequently) corrected. It's usually quite simple:

A: That doesn't count.
B: Does too.
A: Does not.
C, D, E: It counts, so stop wasting time and go find a source.
A: Ugh, fine, here.

People who claim that "who adds or restores material" are less common and mostly not open to the possibility that this line applies to WP:CHALLENGED material (i.e., less than 100% of all additions). Those conversations sound more like this:

A: That doesn't need a source.
B: Does too. BURDEN applies to any "editor who adds", and you added. So go get a source.
A: BURDEN is the same section as WP:CHALLENGE. Are you challenging the verifiability of this material?
B: Nope. I don't need to challenge this. BURDEN says "editor who adds", and it doesn't say anything about a challenge being needed. You "added", so BURDEN applies to your "addition".
A: BURDEN is about citing CHALLENGED material, not about citing everything.
B: Everything is required to be verifiable. Wikipedia should cite everything. BURDEN is the one sentence in the WP:V policy that requires a citation for all additions. You added something, so you have to supply an inline citation per policy. There are no exceptions to BURDEN, so all additions require you to add an inline citation.

...and so on, and so forth, through 2,500 words so far, just for this one conversation.

How would you help "B" understand that the "editor who adds" does not apply to all additions, but only to challenges? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: If we're going to do an RfC style vote, then I have to oppose any wording changes outright. The wording proposals suggested by @WAID effectively make it permissible to not cite sources outside of MINREF. 11WB (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming that you agree that these changes to the wording don't change the rules, but only correct your perception of the rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the majority of Wikipedia to be unsourced, that is your prerogative. I am not going to support that. 11WB (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The policies are supposed to reflect the community's consensus, not the views of Her Serene Illustriousness WhatamIdoing. Like @S Marshall, I would prefer some changes, but the community has so far not yet adopted my views. If I ever get crowned queen of Wikipedia, I'll let you know, but in the meantime, the question isn't "Does the policy do what you or I want?" The question is "Does the policy clearly tell people what the community's consensus is, or is it written so that wikilawyers and other people who disagree with the community's consensus can all claim that the policy supports their view?" Muddled and self-contradictory policies are a Bad Thing.

BTW, I've been told that we're already a bit above the 50% mark, if you count in a sentences-per-reference way, so you don't need to worry about the majority of Wikipedia being unsourced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to acknowledge the sarcasm, which is entirely unnecessary by the way. I also don't know how you can put a percentage on unsourced content, especially when were talking about mainspace only, where new content is moved to every minute and other articles are also deleted frequently. That figure would never be the same and is too vast to quantify. The policy says that all content needs to be verifiable, that means citing a source. It is plain as day. Your wording changes to pick apart and stress every minute detail is ridiculously unnecessary. I have been respectful in this rather long-winded discussion, I would appreciate it if you could offer the same level of respect by not resorting to blatant sarcasm. 11WB (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"[Verifiability] means each fact or claim must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any facts or claims challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." What does "additionally" mean to you? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 00:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Under the premise that anything that is added short of WP:BLUE will be challenged, everything should be cited. 11WB (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of challenge is that you're concerned "that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source" for a piece of information.

Somewhat recently I saw text in Neapolitan ragù challenged for lacking an inline citation and promptly removed. The text said something along the lines of "unlike the Bolognese ragù which is made from minced meat, the Neapolitan ragu is made with whole pieces of meat". This distinction is not common knowledge (which is why the distinction had to be made), therefore it does not fall under WP:BLUESKY.

Do you think it is reasonable to be concerned that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source for this information? Is it a good use of anyone's time to tag this and for you or someone else to remove it, rather than just take two seconds to look it up? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 02:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In re I also don't know how you can put a percentage on unsourced content: The numbers were derived as part of some work the m:Wikimedia Research team did a few years ago. i asked one of the researchers for a preprint at the time. I remember the enwiki numbers but not the others.

The main thing I'd like you to understand is that it's true that "The policy says that all content needs to be verifiable" but the policy directly contradicts claims that being verifiable "means citing a source". Uncited material can be verifiable, according to this policy. That's the plain meaning of the sentence in BURDEN: A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment. Ergo, a true statement is "The policy says that all content needs to be verifiable, and that doesn't mean citing a source".

The presence or absence of a citation doesn't determine whether the material is verifiable. In some cases, the presence or absence of a citation may determine whether the material complies with this policy (which requires 100% verifiability and quite a lot of, but still less than 100%, citations), but the presence or absence of a citation doesn't change the verifiable/unverifiable status of the material itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there can be time gap between adding information that lacks an inline citation but is verifiable, and actually adding the inline citation in. But why? I collaborate quite often with several of the WP:VG editors. The first step they take when creating drafts is finding the sources, before even adding any information in. An example: User:Cukie Gherkin/Rattata. I haven't actually checked that page yet, but I know that @Cukie always locates sources first, so I don't need to check it. Adding information without a source, to then add a source later is the incorrect order. If you can't find a source for something at the moment, don't publish it on the project. 11WB (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good process, but the order in which things are added actually has nothing to do with the question of whether the material is verifiable.

Material is verifiable if the real world has a reliable source that says the same thing as the Wikipedia article and a member of the general public can check that source.

Compare:
A Wikipedia article says water is usually wet; the statement has an inline citation to an acceptable source; the real world has multiple reliable sources saying that water is wet under common circumstances. End result: Y Statement is verifiable.

A Wikipedia article says water is usually wet; the statement has no inline citation; the real world has multiple reliable sources saying that water is wet under common circumstances. End result: Y Statement is still verifiable.

A Wikipedia article says water is usually wet; the statement has an inline citation to a lousy unreliable source; the real world has multiple reliable sources saying that water is wet under common circumstances. End result: Y Statement is still verifiable.

Depending on the statement (e.g., if the statement is about cancer statistics instead of sky-is-blue kind of content), then that verifiable material is probably still required to have an inline citation. But the uncited cancer statistics are still Y verifiable; they're just in violation of the parts of this policy that require an inline citation in addition to being verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if it seemed like I was treating this as an official "RfC-style" !vote. That was not my intention. It was just a response to a proposal. We can remove the bolding if you'd like. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I like the suggested changes to the wording in the first diff box of this comment, and would support their being woven into the text of the policy. I don't especially like any of the additions (diff boxes 2 to 4) and wouldn't support adding them. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break re WP:BURDEN clarification of meaning or language

Oppose changes per 11WB and CMD. Yes, we all know there is no absolute "requirement" to inline-cite edits immediately, and we all know there is a lot of content on the project that isn't cited (much of it quite probably accurate and/or verifiable with a bit of effort). And efforts to enforce arbitrary minimum sourcing standards have not met with consensus. But that does not equate to a need to write all that down in policy speak, thereby watering down the very idea that sources are a fundamental requirement, or adding clauses which actively permit uncited material, undermining the work of those at NPP and others in making sure our pages are providing suitable material to our readers. Writing down in black-and-white that a citation isn't needed would be a clear backward step IMHO, when the (admittedly unattainable) goal is in fact to have our material fully cited. I don't see this as kicking any cans down roads, because the project has been ticking along quite nicely for 20+ years without us needing to write down such explicit exemptions. — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph of NPP's manifesto states that identifying pages which fail to conform to Wikipedia's core content policies and "supporting the improvement of those that can" are both of equal importance to NPP's purpose. The very first line at PRESERVE: "Fix problems if you can, tag or remove them if you can't". Note that it doesn't say "tag first" or "tag blindly". WP:PERFECTION, part of the same policy, adds "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." It describes how proper fact-checking and sourcing might not even occur until the third editor comes along.
Instead of feeling like the work at NPP would be undermined by a possible adjustment here, perhaps the larger concern is that NPP's mission statement is struggling to match the mission. As described multiple times above, it seems to be preferred behavior that a patroller blatantly tag unsourced contributions outside of the lead, aside from WP:BLUE, even for easily-verified statements that take only seconds to source. Where's the spirit of "supporting the improvement" in that?
Aside from a few exceptions, BURDEN does not force you to demonstrate verifiability at the time you add information to Wikipedia (although we encourage doing so as a best practice), and the fact that some in this thread think it does is a problem, however minor it may be in the grand scheme of things. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to me, you could at the very least actually address me directly, rather than talk about me on a thread we're both participating on without doing so.

If I take what you're saying though, and I stop whilst patrolling to find sources (which the author should be doing) for every unsourced or badly sourced line, I would never get anything done at a reasonable speed. An article that takes a minute to review has suddenly taken five to ten instead.

Now, all patrollers do this. Reviewing articles is now a much slower process, meaning the backlog rises even higher.

If you believe I'm violating policy simply by reviewing articles how I'm expected to, please open a thread at WP:AN/I. Policy violations are pretty serious, so obviously I shouldn't be continuing to do this if it's judged that I am. 11WB (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't referring to you personally when I said patroller. I was referring to "the work" being done at NPP as it has been described here on several occasions. I should also clarify that I totally expect that it would be impractical for you to slow down and evaluate each and every unsourced statement, but there may be situations where there is only a small number, and attempting to source may be preferred before tagging. GoneIn60 (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I mistakenly took your reply to @Amakuru's personally. I apologise. This discussion has made me question whether there is something I'm missing and whether there are extra things I should be doing when reviewing. Based on what now three administrators have said however, I don't think expecting content to be sourced immediately is unreasonable. 11WB (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's my view that NPPers should be doing less, not more. NPP was created to address CSD-worthy problems. Moving an article out of the Special:NewPagesFeed should IMO require nothing more than declaring that it's not a hoax, attack page, copyvio, etc. Everything else, including notability, should IMO be 100% optional for NPP. Instead, between the grand visions of a few editors for making NPP into a total gatekeeping mechanism, and the rest of the community not champing at the bit to do boring work like contemplating the notability of a mid-range South Asian actor, the NPP checklist grows ever longer. I wouldn't prohibit NPPers from editing articles that they happen to encounter during NPP work – they're ordinary editors, too – but there should IMO be no expectation of this.

And, indeed, quite a lot of editors do those quick checks on brand-new articles and then move on. Either it needs a CSD tag, or they're moving to the next one, and leaving the rest for another NPPer to do all the boring bits. It's sometimes instructive to look at the list of brand-new articles and compare the page views for articles created an hour or two before midnight. Because of the way we record page views, that lets us see page views for the first hour vs the subsequent 24 hours. They often get more page views in the first hour than on the entire next day (example, example). Each of those two articles has 20–25 page views within the first ~25 hours of its existence, and both are still marked as unreviewed by NPP. They aren't really/completely unreviewed, though; they've just been partially and redundantly reviewed by multiple editors, none of whom wanted to slog through the whole decreed NPP process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Minimising the arduous work that new page reviewers do is pretty incredible. NPRs are what stand between LLM, promo, hoaxes and all other types of "junk" from ending up in the view of the general public. 11WB (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And I'd like NPP to go back to the days when they had one specialized job – to send CSD-worthy pages, including {{db-hoax}} articles, off for deletion – and that was it. That "arduous work" should IMO be spread through the whole community and not land on the shoulders of a small group. It is precisely because I'm not "minimising" the scale of the needed work that I think NPP should be freed from most of it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You've just unintentionally minimised NPP again by incorrectly referring to them as a "small group". Please take a look at WP:JANFEB26 and you'll see why that label is incorrect. 11WB (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The January page says that 150 editors signed up. In that group, the median number of non-redirect articles marked patrolled last month was 16. The median number of non-redirect articles tagged for deletion last month was zero. The median number of non-redirect articles moved to the Draft: namespace was zero.

During that same month, about 15,000 new non-redirect articles were put in the mainspace. 15,000 new non-redirect articles last month ÷ 150 patrollers processing a median of just 16 non-redirect articles in that whole month = group that is IMO too small for a process that anyone might be inclined to use words like "arduous" or "complex" or "detailed" or "lengthy" to describe. It might subjectively feel like a lot of editors to you, but if Wikipedia operated like an ordinary business and I were the manager responsible for that group, I'd be flagging it as being at risk of failing a bus test. This is an overloaded process that needs a smaller scope and more people working on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I should have exited this discussion several days ago. The talk page message you left me has been responded to and per your note on blanking, immediately archived. I am no longer subscribed to this discussion, so I shouldn't find my way back here again. It's probably best we don't interact on Wikipedia from now so that ridiculously lengthy and unnecessary discussions like this can be avoided in future. I wish you well with your endeavours. 11WB (talk) 14:08, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've never thought that writing down the community consensus in black and white is a clear step backwards. I dislike unwritten rules and telling lies to newbies.

The lead of Wikipedia:No original research has said for years that sometimes citations aren't needed. As you say, many people believe the project has been ticking along quite nicely for 20+ years while that policy has clearly stated the truth that sometimes citations aren't needed, so I doubt that clearly stating the community's consensus in this policy, too, will cause any significant problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst you've had some minimal support for your wording edits, it seems there is a consensus to stick with the status quo. If this topic is started up again in half a year or so, I probably won't catch wind of it, so maybe you'll get more support then. As of right now though, it's probably best to let this discussion fizzle out. 11WB (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We're nowhere near the stage of forming a consensus. The question for right now is only what range of changes we would like to propose.

So far, I think the group is leaning towards nothing radical. None of the 'opposers' seem to be willing to propose any changes that would make the rules match their preferences. This could be because they are aware that the community would reject their view; any change towards clearly communicating the community consensus risks making their view untenable – at least in the unlikely scenario in which their opponent reads the policy.

None of the 'supporters' (including me) seem to have any appetite for decreasing the incentives to cite sources. We seem willing to tolerate a bit of inclarity and confusion as a protection against worse outcomes.

So I think we'll end up taking some baby steps. @GoneIn60 suggests a change from could be cited to could be located and cited; I think could be found and cited might be clearer. ("Located" might result in someone saying "Yeah, I tried to 'locate' it, and I couldn't locate a single little blue clicky number anywhere in the Wikipedia article!" In this sentence, we mean the "go to your nearest public library" or "use your favorite web search engine" kind of locating, not the "look in the Wikipedia article" kind.)

@S Marshall, what do you think about putting more of Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems in this section? I'm torn between wanting to encourage collaborative behavior (which means first checking for a source myself, and only then tagging or blanking) and knowing that there are times when BURDEN is an efficient way to deal with nonsense (Oh, you 'did your own research' and decided that aspirin was made from toxic waste products? Well, come back when you find a reliable source for that. I see no need to waste my own time trying to cite unverifiable nonsense, but you go right ahead and try it, okay?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd be disinclined in that instance.—S Marshall T/C 08:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think you're right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No changes are needed. These policies have worked for almost as long as I've been alive. To quote @Amakuru, to make the changes you've proposed would be to 'add clauses which actively permit uncited material, undermining the work of those at NPP'. 11WB (talk) 08:34, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're an adult, these policies don't say anything like what they said when you were born. They evolve in response to the exigencies of the moment. They will definitely need to evolve further in response to LLMs. At the moment, human NPP patrollers are doing a King Canute act trying to hold back a tide of automatically-generated, potentially hallucinated, edits and the volume of those edits is trending upwards. At some point we will need to stop tagging and start reverting more aggressively.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting would be against what @WAID and others are looking for. 11WB (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WAID can speak for herself, but I have a feeling that her position might be more nuanced and less absolutist than that.—S Marshall T/C 09:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you would label the general process reviewers follow as absolutist, but okay... 11WB (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you and I are failing to communicate somehow. Again, if that's my fault, I apologise. I am not saying that the NPP process is absolutist. I am saying that WAID's view is not absolutist. I make this claim based on experience of talking to her. From now on, if it's possible to think of anything I say in this conversation as being personal to you or being a criticism of NPP, then that is not the way I meant to be construed.—S Marshall T/C 14:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My position on LLMs is more complicated than that; nuanced is a nice word for it, but some days I think that muddled would be the better description. As a non-user of LLMs, I try to hold my views lightly, as I would do for any emerging technology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support at least the first option (i.e. making explicit reference to the 4 categories where inline citations are required when adding content in relation to BURDEN). It seems clear to me when taken in context of the entire policy that this is already what it means, but obviously this isn't universally shared. Not so sure about some of the other suggestions, bad faith CN bombing is hard to define but is behavioural in nature, not sure the "no source required for article creations" consensus needs codifying here as it seems to be a natural extension of what policy already states, and I'm not a fan of listing ways in how editors shouldn't behave here. Scribolt (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The no source for article creation implication is codified in WP:BEFORE. CMD (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, I don't think that's true, but if it was, then we should change BEFORE, because we've (unfortunately) had multiple recent RFCs rejecting the proposal that all articles be required to have a source. Again, I offer to strategize with anyone who's interested in changing the community's consensus. Just leave a note on my talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BEFORE is in line with those RfCs. It keeps unsourced articles. As for strategy, simply observing BURDEN is all that is needed and how this discussion should have resolved. CMD (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I misread what you said. (It's clear enough; I just didn't get it the first time.) Thanks for explaining. If you want a clearer example of accepting an entirely unsourced article, then NOR's lead addresses it more directly: "Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy".

I think that the community will eventually officially require all articles to contain a source. I have some ideas about how to make that happen. There is a question of how (mostly: Will the proposer manage to exercise restraint and just propose expanding the WP:BLPPROD process to all articles, or will they self-sabotage via overreach like all the recent failures?) and when (odds of acceptance will be higher when Category:Articles lacking sources is empty; at the current rate, I think that will take about 1.5 more years), but I think that a successful proposal will be possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Example Check out Crystal_Hot_Sauce#Ingredients. I saw this article today, and there were some lines of content which I removed as unsourced, but then another line in the "Ingredients" section which would appear to me to be a perfect example of exactly why we want to allow people the ability to leave unsourced WP:BLUE type content but maybe borders on less BLUE and more just plausible. Such as, why would someone make the ingredients of this hot sauce a hoax? Sure, there are trolls out there, but I believe most people are good and decent and that is what makes Wikipedia function. Also, I think IF someone LATER on finds the ingredients attached to a reliable source, they can always add it, but it seems harmless, and even beneficial, to me to leave the line, "The ingredient list on the product's packaging is: aged red cayenne peppers, distilled vinegar, salt." for now... Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 03:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is already a verifiable claim. It even has Wikipedia:Inline citation#In-text attribution to the source of the information (namely, the label on the bottle). Anyone (in 75 countries, according to the article) could find a bottle of the hot sauce, read the ingredients list on the package, and "check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources". Even if you can't get your hands on an actual bottle, you can look up ingredients lists on websites that sell it.

Remember: uncited ≠ unverifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And… if some idiot “challenges” the ingredients… don’t argue… just slap in a citation to the bottle label or one of those many websites. That way it has a blue clicky number next to it and the Wookie feels like they “won” and goes away (note: If it really bothers you to have a blue clicky when you don’t think it necessary, you can always wait a bit and remove it once the Wookie moves on to be an idiot elsewhere). Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that I don't like how we are referring to well meaning editors here and encouraging the circumvention of verifiability. Sohom (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Someone once fact-tagged a sentence about how many fingers are normally present on the human hand. We are not always dealing with "well-meaning editors", and putting in a citation to the ingredients list on the back of a bottle (which is a Wikipedia:Published source) is not "encouraging the circumvention of verifiability". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could support the first proposed change. Probably the only substantial change within it is in adding these words: If material is disputed. I do see how that could provide useful clarification, by clarifying that changes should be reverted ultimately because they lack encyclopedic and scholarly merit, not simply because no citation is given. That has long been our approach (and as anyone around for long enough will remember, we once didn't even use inline citations in our articles). Having supported one of the changes, I still have to say that I think the current policy is clear enough. It sets out an objective standard ("how many sources are extant?") which anyone reverting content addition has to meet: All content must be verifiable. A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited. Arcticocean ■ 22:00, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute about the definition of "self published"

Whether the website Monterey County Theatre Alliance which some dude Terry Blum maintained more or less reigned full control over the contents is "self published". My understanding is that such is a "group blog", although another user understands it differently. Please help clear up the misunderstanding Talk:Stephen_Moorer#Minutiae_citing_self-published_source Graywalls (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls IDK if I'd say it's a group blog, but it seems questionable for making BLP claims--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 18:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is no agreed-on definition of self-published (the most recent RfC about this is here). There are some categories of publications were there's agreement (e.g., everyone agrees that personal social media posts and vanity press books are self-published, everyone agrees that NYT articles and Oxford University Press books / journal articles are not self-published). But there are many other categories about which people have divergent views. For many people, the dividing line is whether there's an editor who assesses a text's accuracy and/or can reject content. That's totally opaque in this case; looking at the MCTA's homepage and subpage titles, it's not clear to me how anyone was even able to determine that Terry Blum is the person responsible for the website's contents. My guess (which is definitely a guess) is that there is no editor and it should be treated as SPS, acceptable for ABOUTSELF but not for BLP content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should think about having another go at a definition of self-published some time (this year? next year?). I'm wondering if a footnote listing examples might be easier to get adopted than a definition (e.g., "Formal reports from a government agency are generally non-self-published, but press releases and "About Our Agency" pages are self-published"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about going back to it, but have had difficulty figuring out how to proceed. If I'm remembering right, a lot of people saw SPS inextricably connected to reliability. And it's a subsection of "Sources that are usually not reliable." In that sense, the existing footnote about "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content" isn't off. The problem is that in many cases, we simply don't know whether such reviewers exist. Another problem is that if we instead turn to a dictionary definition of self-published, none interpret "published" in the same way as WP. I'm certainly open to trying again, in which case I should go back to that RfC and take some notes about the variety of issues people raised. I don't know that a set of examples will work any better; or perhaps I'm uncertain how we allocate the many examples in the gray area in between those that everyone agrees are SPS and those that everyone agrees are not SPS. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Blum is mentioned as a contact, but it's unclear who writes the content on the site. It seems to function mostly as some kind of e-newsletter.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We also should consider whether we'd allow a source like this for unflattering information where the fact about the information isn't in question. While WP:BLP policy is needed to prevent damaging false information from going into articles, different standards for positive contents vs negative contents will cause selective concentration of flattering information and selective suppression of negative information, which leads to shift in NPOV. Graywalls (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, I would agree with you: if it's non-self-published for saying where he went to school, then it would be non-self-published for saying that he flunked out of school, or that he got fired from a job.

But in this case, we're literally talking about whether an interview with the subject is good enough to support a claim that the actor spent a semester of college studying acting. We normally accept undeniably self-published content, including Facebook posts, for that kind of basic biographical content. So for the specific content question at hand, it's kind of irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've posed the definition in that something is self-published if there is no clear fact check or strict editorial review step between when the writer presses "publish" and when the article appears on the website. This would cover individual blogs as well as group blogs as being self-published. A simple spell/grammar check by someone else is not a strict editorial review for this purpose. Masem (t) 15:52, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This has been my understanding, too. That there's a second set of eyeballs who did not author the work and whose job it is to check for errors. Mistakes still happen, but it's no longer just one person immediately posting.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 21:59, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really about fact-checking. It's about "you" deciding whether or not you want "your" publication to publish "my" work, and you having the freedom to tell me "Thanks, but no thanks". That could be completely unrelated to factual considerations (e.g., Why would "your" newspaper want to dedicate space to something so boring or unimportant as the subject I wrote 100% factually about?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At heart, a published source derives some form of reliability from the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of its publisher. A self-published source does not; it has no reputable publisher. It's not as simple as "if everything is ultimately controlled by one person, then it's self-published" - by that definition eg. the Washington Post would be self-published! I would say that some form of editorial independence between the publisher and the writers is necessary, but it's hazy; clearly Jeff Bezos can, and has shown he is willing to, fire any writers or editors who refuse to say what he want. Ultimately we determine whether there's enough editorial controls by looking at the source's reputation. Or, in other words, it might be more useful to think of WP:SPS as mostly being about exceptions that allow an otherwise-unreliable source to be used in certain contexts; it's not really meaningful as a category of "unusable source" because anything that falls under SPS will by definition fail the general reputation for fact-checking and accuracy requirements of RS, and vice-versa. --Aquillion (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean "a non-self-published source derives ..."? After all, SPSs are published. Expert SPSs do have reputable publishers (their publications in RSs establish that reputation); arguably, it's even possible for a given SPS to develop a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy even if the author hasn't had their work in the relevant field published by reliable, independent publications (i.e., if expert authors elsewhere treat that SPS as reliable). FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EXPERTSPS would be something like a verified, Wix or Weebly website of a world renowned physicist whose website has been confirmed to be theirs by something like NYT or Times. The personal website would be a reliable source for things that is within the field for which he is renowned for. However, WP:DUE is entirely different. Something being factually indisputably correct doesn't mean every fact is inclusion worthy. Graywalls (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"If Einstein had a blog" is the go-to example for an expert SPS, but we've never required that Einstein's hypothetical blog be a website, rather than a Facebook account, and we've never required that control of the expert's account be confirmed by a daily newspaper.

This particular claim, which is supported by the subject saying something himself, is an WP:ABOUTSELF thing. The problem you're up against is that literally nobody agrees with your belief that the fact that a notable actor attended a notable acting school is "minutiae" that is not "worthy" of being mentioned in a single sentence in the ==Education== section of the article about the actor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That he did a 16 week internship or whatever and when the inclusion advocate would only cite some flimsy alliance website, I consider that a minutiae. Is there a policy or precedent from a non-local consensus saying this is an incorrectly interpretation? Graywalls (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sixteen weeks is the standard length of an academic semester, and the acting school in question was accredited by Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which is recognized by the US Department of Education as a Regional accreditation agency. This is not just some "whatever"; this is a legitimate, legally recognized, university-level education program. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary for a newspaper or something to confirm that it's Einstein's blog. It can be you, yourself, off wiki. Case in point, on an article I created on a very obscure compilation album, I cite some Discogs edits made by one of the producers of and artists on the compilation for details regarding a hidden track that can't be found anywhere else. While the draft was still in my sandbox, I ran this by WP:RS, and it was agreed that this is acceptable for the claim it supports, provided that I could confirm that the account is indeed run by the person it says it is. I then emailed the Bandcamp for a different project run by the same individual about the Discogs page, and the Discogs email account confirmed the other conversation, proving it's all the same person. The WP:RS discussion then agreed that this is fine. You just need some way to prove it's the same person.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're emailing someone and what's said in email can not be verified against something that's already published, you're doing WP:OR. Can you link to the discussion? WP:SPS rule is essential to prevent someone from circumnavigating WP:RS by doing their original research, posting it on their own Weebly, then citing it as an alterative to making an uncited edit. They're essentially the same, because there exists no reliably published information. Graywalls (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't citing, and didn't cite, the email, I was emailing to verify that the person operating the account was indeed who they said they were. This wasn't my research, it was something stated by the author of the work that the article is about. Thus an WP:ABOUTSELF situation. The link to the discussion is here--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 15:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § Moving forward with Reference Check

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources § Moving forward with Reference Check. Sdkb‑WMF ^talk 07:02, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For those who haven't followed this:

The idea is that inexperienced editors who (a) use the visual editor and (b) add a chunk of text but no refs will get a pop-up reminder that Wikipedia ♥️ sources. Editors receiving this reminder appear to be much more likely to add a source before posting their edit (70% of desktop editors; 50% of mobile editors) than similar editors who didn't get the reminder (30% of desktop editors; just 3% of mobile editors).

In addition to the immediate effect of getting sources added, it should also train the next generation of editors that "everybody knows" that sources are expected with all additions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS: add text re both pro and con must support positions?

To discourage wikilawyering, I proposed adding the following sentence to wp:ONUS:

Those seeking and opposing inclusion have the responsibility to do so using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; and may also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.

This change was reverted because, according to the reverting editor, "[t]his fundamentally changes the meaning of the [existing text]." I'm having trouble seeing any change, must less a fundamental one. What am I missing. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Butwhatdoiknow my concern regarding it changing the meaning is that it actually muddies the waters because if you were to simply read the pair of sentences together it carries the suggestion that to "invoke" WP:ONUS someone would have to present a rationale "based in policy, sources, and common sense". This fundamentally shifts the burden of responsibility as currently set out, because someone can go "well you didn't provide a good reason to raise ONUS so it stays" and moves us to "consensus to remove".

I don't think ONUS is perfect, but the current version being so straightforward and explicit is preferable to creating room for interpretation (when we already have frequent issues of people reversing the meaning of ONUS to claim it in fact says the person removing content has to get consensus). Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rambling Rambler. The proposed changes reverse burden. --Hipal (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the idea that an understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines are required to oppose the inclusion of content. That means a reader who has never edited the encyclopedia, but know from their own expertise that content is wrong, has to first read the policies and guidelines before making any correction. That's just not a reasonable requirement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:07, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it very simple.... the ONUS for inclusion/change it's on the ones implementing new content or change. Moxy🍁 19:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested, "using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense" is required by the WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS policy (italics added). Saying that content is wrong and explaining why meets this requirement. Then, as the existing text says, the proponent has the responsibility to defend their change. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the content is wrong should normally be a sufficient explanation by itself. Did you mean explaining how the content is wrong? That might work for some things ("Looks like you forgot to carry the two in that math equation"), but nobody should have to explain why "It's wrong" is a big problem for a Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That gets hairy when reliable sources clearly differ from each other and some editors bias towards what they find to be "correct" based on their personal/professional knowledge and experience even though such bias should be absolutely left out, then we have editors that question reliable sources, because the reliable source didn't cite where the information came from. It resulted in a disagreement, because of editor partiality to specific sources. This one didn't exactly get resolved and multiple variations were included. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:555_timer_IC/Archive_1#c-Sbmeirow-2020-08-27T10:31:00.000Z-Graywalls-2020-08-27T10:03:00.000Z for example. Graywalls (talk) 06:15, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. We don't want subject-matter experts to pretend they're ignorant (but we do want them to cite sources like they're fending off WP:RANDY). While, as a general rule, sources are not required to repeat their sources (in the FAQ at the top of this page, if you ever want to quote it), if there is genuine doubt among knowledgeable people about whether what a source says is actually true, especially if this is a trivial point, then it's often best for Wikipedia editors to prefer saying nothing to risking being wrong.

We have a long list of Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Some of those have been uncritically cited by external sources, even in peer-reviewed scholarly articles, which creates a horrible citogenesis problem. But in this context, it's important to remember that Wikipedia isn't the only publication that has experienced that problem. If you've read the Feynman story about "How strong do we know it's T?", you'll know that this problem is a lot older than Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it's already policy under WP:CONSENSUS shows that the proposed changes here are less necessary and undesired compared to the confusion likely to arise. Once it gets to a discussion stage the section highlighted at DISCUSSCONSENSUS is therefore relevant, but placing wording similar to it at ONUS creates an implication it happens before the initial removal. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok… time to again suggest that the simplest way to deal with this is to remove the WP:ONUS sentence completely. No one seems to agree on what it means, so why say it? Blueboar (talk) 20:33, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Selfstudier (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Some people will try and argue it says something different but it's always a terrible ploy because it's either blatant bad faith or highlights a basic CIR issue if they can't understand "if you want to include something, you have to get consensus for it".

Given the increasing issues around BLPs and politics, a bright-line "consensus is required for inclusion" is very helpful. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No one knows what ONUS means. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I went and looked at what ONUS said at the time of that 2022 discussion and it was much wordier and more confusing:

"While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Funnily enough the edit log for that time suggests you've repeatedly over the years been unilaterally changing the text for ONUS even in the face of repeated criticism, which isn't great. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You'll find that text remains, just above ONUS at WP:VNOT. It also hasn't changed since 2022.

(2) Yes, I take WP:EDITCONSENSUS to heart. That means I run the risk of being reverted. I don't consider it criticism, I consider it Wikipedia working the way it is supposed to work. And that is great. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

1) The text remains, but is suitably separated as a distinct item which removes the possible confusion.

2) But it also means you're very much aware this is a topic of strong feeling and that the community at large has repeatedly rejected changing it through discussion, which makes the decision to just wait a while and then make your preferred changes without opening a discussion to overturn the preceding consensus you know exists come across poorly. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Just curious, which of the 15 possible meanings of the ONUS sentence do you believe is the clear, unconfusing, and unambiguous one? Or do you want to add a 16th?

(2) It is regrettable that you find my approach to editing Wikipedia isn't great and comes across poorly. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it's clear that Onus is describing part of the Consensus policy (changes require consensus), by saying that additions require consensus (not just verifiability). It is a redundant policy and for that reason should be removed. "Verifiability is not enough" is a sufficient policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need consensus to insert Johnson Middle School serves strawberry milk in cafeteria lunch citing the school's page and/or local tabloid press. This isn't really an exceptional statement. Reliable verifiability burden is already met. What does need consensus is if this is removed for WP:VNOT by another editor. If you still wish to pursue inclusion, then YOU must do the leg work to get consensus for inclusion and it's beyond just getting a handful of people to say "I think it should be included". Such disagreement can be about minutiae, but of great corporate public relations interest. Deep pocketed corporations who engage a PR firm can easily mobilize such voting, so actual discussion is needed. Graywalls (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like I tried to say, changes to consensus require consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically wrong: You don't need consensus to insert Johnson Middle School serves strawberry milk in cafeteria lunch.

You need consensus for everything. Nothing will ever stay on a page (or be removed from a page) without consensus. Consensus is about what sticks in the end.

What you don't need is written permission. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is you don't need to pre-accomplish consensus to add something. Graywalls (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But to keep that addition in the article, you need to have some level of consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you're once again linking back to an archive you set up where you gave 15 extremely similar definitions of ONUS, where you received 13 responses funnily enough of which a majority went with a single interpretation (13, which funnily enough is an essay compared to the other options).

Yeah, regardless of your intent I am struggling to perceive this as anything but a years-long campaign by yourself to redefine ONUS in the face of repeated dismissals of your attempted changes, and that you appear to know this. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more fair to describe it as their years-long attempt to understand ONUS and re-write it into a form that makes sense to their way of thinking/neurotype. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing Or maybe, just focusing on my most recent proposal (and keeping in mind that I did not propose to change the existing text), it could be described as an unsuccessful attempt to reduce the chances that "remove" editors will misuse ONUS to justify playing fetch. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:50, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS is a source-agnostic rule. Yes, the consensus-building process might involve looking at sources, but you can invoke ONUS for any reason (or none). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "(or none)," it is my opinion that WP:CONACHIEVE says otherwise. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS can be invoked before any CONACHIEVE-based discussions have begun. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose that depends on the "clear" meaning of the ONUS sentence. If (a) it means that challenged text (whether newly added or preexisting) must always be absent from a page until an affirmative consensus is formed to include it - even if the "challenge" is a removal or revert with an edit summary that says only "ONUS" - then (b) I suppose you're right. I, for one, don't think it means that. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS doesn't say that CHALLENGED text "must always be absent". It says that if "you" want the stuff to be present and someone else doesn't, then "you" have to prove there's a consensus to include it, but the other editor doesn't have to prove there's a consensus to exclude it.

In this way, ONUS supports removal but does not mandate immediate removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is not accurate. If someone wants to remove content it is equally their responsibility to prove there's no consensus for it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the literal words in ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Note the absence of any words in that sentence saying anything about achieving consensus for exclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, Onus reiterates only part of the Consensus policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What sentence in Wikipedia:Consensus do you think imposes a requirement for consensus to remove material? I'm looking for something more direct than everything needs to have some sort of agreement, or the edit won't stick. Imagine that I remove something from an article. What sentence in WP:CON could you quote to convince me that the community's policies say I have a responsibility to prove there's no consensus for it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you if you are not able to make these inferences. You need consensus to change consensus. It's everyone's responsibility to determine what consensus is. This is how things are done. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% with WhatamIdoing on this. What part of "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" are you having trouble understanding? What you are suggesting reverses the way pretty much every Wikipedia editor approaches editing decisions. I don't think you quite realize the unintended consequences of requiring consensus to remove something. Which, BTW, is incompatible with requiring consensus to include something. You have to pick a lane. The lane we, as an encyclopedia, have picked is WP:BRD. Not BR. Not BRRD. -Guy Macon (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You do need consensus to remove content which has consensus. The hard part in both directions is determining what consensus is. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

BRD applies to additions or removals. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain why we are saying ANY of this in the policy on Verifiability? Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main answers are change aversion and a belief that if WP:V says it, then that's somehow "more policy" than if WP:CON says exactly the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be your huckleberry! First some quick context as a recap. VNOT originally existed without ONUS, as seen in its first iteration in 2013 when you inserted it. ONUS appears 18 months later (without discussion if I recall correctly). Also for reference is an earlier version of CON as it existed right before ONUS.

At the time, it probably seemed like a natural progression to expand VNOT in this fashion. Back then, CON wasn't quite as refined as it is today, particularly its "Consensus-building in talk pages" section which may have allowed determined POV pushers (especially this kind) more opportunity to twist the knife and produce unintended outcomes. A notable refinement in this section didn't happen until later:

Older: "consensus can be assumed if editors stop responding to talk page discussions"
Newer: "Consensus cannot always be assumed simply because editors stop responding to talk page discussions in which they have already participated"

That's just one possible motive for ONUS, which scrapes the add portion out of NOCON's "add, modify, or delete" and inserts it into VNOT – a policy concerning inclusion. Seemed to have good intentions and doubtful the move was meant to supercede or conflict with NOCON. It's just this isolation of "add" that has allowed editors to find excuses to ignore, acquire amnesia, or never properly learn about the other aspects of CON. I think ONUS served its purpose and was helpful for a time, but it has outlived that purpose.

It's not surprising why many are now asking, "Why are we STILL saying any of this in V?" -- GoneIn60 (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So… I added VNOT to warn editors that WP:V isn't our “inclusion” policy… that there are lots of other factors (including a consensus to omit) that might mean some bit of verifiable information might not be accepted. The addition of ONUS seems to have flipped that, turning WP:V into an inclusion policy. Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking more on this - I think most of us would agree that IF and WHEN there is an existing consensus to omit some bit of verifiable information, those wishing to include it wpuld have to demonstrate that the consensus has changed…

HOWEVER - that is true for any existing consensus (and would be equally true IF and WHEN there is an existing consensus to include the information - ie those wishing to omit it would have to demonstrate that the existing consensus has changed).

ALL of which is predicated on there actually being an existing consensus. My biggest issue with the ONUS sentence is that it seems to skip over the question of WHETHER there is an existing consensus or not. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's meant to skip that. The worldview feels something like this:

Consensus doesn't really exist unless there's a discussion on the talk page (sometimes even "an RFC") in which multiple editors clearly agree to ____.
You added something, and it's been there a while. Merely having content stay on the page is not a True™ Consensus.
Since there's no True™ Consensus, I can freely remove it.
But no backsies: Jimbo said that it's better for a Wikipedia article to say nothing than to say something wrong, so I get to remove it, but you don't get to re-add it until you can prove a True™ Consensus.

I think that so long as the sentence and the shortcut stay together, it won't really matter which page it's on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "meant" to skip that. Onus was not created with that much consideration. And Silent consensus can be just as valid as discussed consensus, it's just that it's untested. If a sentence has been in the lead of an article for 20 years, the bold edit is the edit to remove it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is your POV.

However, I'm talking about the POV of people who use and support ONUS as written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do use and support Onus as written. You just have a different POV. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For me to believe that, you would have to stop turning up at these discussions saying that the sentence "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" applies equally to exclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What comment of mine are you referring to? That sounds like a pedantic claim. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment" in the singular would be wrong, but consider "If someone wants to remove content it is equally their responsibility to prove there's no consensus for it". That was last week, in this discussion about ONUS. It is the opposite of what ONUS says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I didn't say it's what Onus says it's what consensus says? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:44, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@GoneIn60, I wonder if you'd like to start a Wikipedia:Verifiability/History page. Some of it is in Wikipedia:Core content policies#History and a bit more in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 75#The history of WP:ONUS, but we keep having people ask for details about ONUS and it feels like we're always re-re-re-looking up the same diffs.. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was poking around the fringe theories noticeboard and found the link here. This seems the best place to put in my $0.02 on this question.

In terms of logic (and probability and methodology), adding text should incur no greater a burden than removing it. A greater burden to add text basically means that the world has to work harder to expand representation of belief on Wikipedia. I should think that, if anything, it should be exactly the reverse. But, again, from a logical point of view, these are in the same boat. Generally speaking, on Wikipedia, it should always be the case that when there is a dispute, both sides of the dispute bear a burden to support their side. This is a very sound and common principle, and any exceptions to it need careful justification. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A greater burden to add text also means that the world doesn't have to work harder to prevent someone from adding statements debunking minority POVs. Generally speaking, in any encyclopedia, concision should be one of its values. Six paragraphs of bloat is not better than two quick removals. Six paragraphs of bloat is the opposite of Wikipedia:Brilliant prose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad argument for both for deletionism in general and for this burden for deletion in particular. (I am a staunch inclusionist and always have been.) Wikipedia is not paper. Concision of ''style'' is useful in an encyclopedia, of course, but that is quite a different thing from concision of fact. We should not be just hacking out facts for no good reason, because someone thinks they're not necessary. The only real questions I think are that we discover the best articles to file away facts and have enough people to maintain them reasonably responsibly. Larry Sanger (talk) 04:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We want something like this:

Deontologists and consequentialists disagree over whether the ends justify the means.^[1]^[2]

We don't want this:

Deontologists say that the ends don't justify the means.^[1]
But consequentialists say they do.^[2]
But deontologists say the consequentialists are wrong.
But consequentialists say the deontologists are wrong.
But the consequentialists really are wrong because they're immoral.
But Connie Consequentialist says the deontologists are actually wrong because they don't care what happens.
But Dan Deontologist says that the consequentialists are really the wrong ones.
But Connie Consequentialist was quoted by Prof. I.M. Portant in Journal of Important Things saying that the deontologists are actually wrong.
But Dan Deontologist wrote an award-winning book called No Consequentialists Go to Heaven, and he said on page 14 that the consequentialists are even wronger than anyone ever thought.

This problem is solved by removing most of the back-and-forth bloat. It is not solved by "filing away" overly detailed content. The fact of the different POVs should be kept, but the blow-by-blow is not appropriate for an encyclopedic summary (unless, of course, the subject of the article is a very detailed one, e.g., "1994 dispute between Connie and Dan"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1 re ONUS: add text re both pro and con must support positions?

@Rambling Rambler, I suggest you spend less time trying to devine my intentions. If you proceed regardless of my suggestion, please consider Hanlon's razor. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reason people try to divine intentions is because sometimes, knowing the goal can help you think of a different, and possibly even better, way to achieve that goal. But if you can't figure out what the goal is, and the proposed solution doesn't seem like a good one, all you can do is say "No". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If helping is the goal then perhaps people should ask "what is your intention?" instead of using divination - particularly when that divination leads you to negative conclusions about another editor (such as "isn't great," "come across poorly," and "a years-long campaign . . . in the face of repeated dismissals"). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is the second step to build consensus, the first is through editing as per CONSENSUS. Your change would make discussion based on policy a requirement for editing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:09, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons can be given in edit summaries. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor may not even know what an edit summary is, knowledge of Wikipedia's WORDSALAD should not be a requirement to edit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Think you're missing a not after your should. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that[2]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Butwhatdoiknow, your proposed change would, in all good faith, quite possibly encourage Wikilawyering. I suggest the effectiveness of WP:ONUS is in its very simplicity; it is clear and absolute. Yes, editors may try and argue, but as it stands they are arguing the unarguable. This addition would probably give them grounds to argue the more. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:37, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are free to edit in any way that they think improves an article … that means both adding and removing content. Now, sometimes editors disagree on whether an edit improves an article or not - and when that happens, we seek consensus. That consensus can be reached via further editing, via discussion, or via a mix of editing with discussion.

The ONUS to reach a consensus should be upon ALL of us. As it is, one “side” of the inclusion disagreement can simply point to ONUS, stonewall and cry “Not it! I don’t have to convince you… You have to convince me.” Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"As it is, one “side” of the inclusion disagreement can simply point to ONUS, stonewall and cry “Not it! I don’t have to convince you… You have to convince me."

And the only alternative is that we don't preference either side so all we get is:

"I don't have to convince you, you have to convince me!"

"Nuh-uh, you have to convince me!"

The point is if someone tries to stonewall by tapping the ONUS sign well it suggests there's only two people currently disagreeing and then it's a hop skip and jump to 3O or DRN, and if that lone person continues to try and stonewall because "I'm not convinced" then it's obvious stonewalling and they get a rather quick block for disruptive editing and failure to abide by consensus. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambling Rambler, it turns out that we're on the same page. My goal in adding the text that got all of this started was to have the policy explicitly say that you can't use ONUS to stonewall - if you contest inclusion then you have to say more than "convince me!" First question for you: Do you think it is a good or bad idea to say this at ONUS? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the regulars at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard would find such a change to be anathema.

I think that "don't stonewall" is unenforceable (due to a distinct lack of mind-reading skills in the community) and would lead only to drama. "Convince me!" has a defined path for Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. "Don't stonewall" would take the focus off the content and put it on behavior. We want this:

Alice: Convince me.
Bob: Here are my reasons.
Alice: I don't agree.
Bob: Let's get a third opinion/go to a noticeboard/start an RFC.

We don't want this:

Alice: Convince me.
Bob: Here are my reasons.
Alice: I don't agree.
Bob: You're just stonewalling! I'm done focusing on content. I'm taking this to ANI because of your stonewalling behavior!

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to heed to what the editors at that noticeboard think? There are many editors who believe that noticeboard should be closed. Katzrockso (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same as any other noticeboard or other page where editors congregate: To the extent that the group's view matches the community's view, then that's the consensus, and consensus is king. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3: Alice says "I don't agree because [reason]." Maybe Bob will see Alice's point and either concede, modify his proposal, or provide an additional reason for his proposed addition - no need to ask the other parent.

Isn't that what we want? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice when it works that way, but the key point in this scenario is that we need them talking about content (e.g., "reasons") and not about editors (e.g., "stonewalling"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! My thought is that we should include text in ONUS that nudges editors in that direction. Do you think that is a good or bad idea? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that WP:V is the right place to achieve that goal.

I think one way to make that problem worse would be changing ONUS to apply equally to all edits. When something is everyone's job, it's nobody's job, because everybody thinks somebody else will/should do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not proposing a change to the existing text. It will remain and apply only to "inclusion." How would adding something saying that blankers should (not must) provide reasons change the scope of the current text? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who removes content, who then doesn't take part in a discussion started by someone else, and reverts the re-additional of that content is being disruptive. That communication is required is already part of policy. Consensus doesn't mean that everyone has to be convinced, if two editors disagree find a third opinion per WP: Dispute resolution. "Convince me!" only holds up until there is a third voice. Content being in or out of an article while consensus is found is not a problem, there is no dead line. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:00, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS is more like a default position if there's a disagreement over content and if it wasn't there, it would encourage further back and forth edit warring. This was a frustrating discussion: Talk:City_College_of_New_York#RFC_on_Phrase_on_Honors_College. I feel that one strong willed inclusion proponent forcibly rested to inclusion and it turned the situation into ONUS where I was put in place to establish consensus to remove. If WP:ONUS was being followed, it would have defaulted to exclusion and the burden was on the one who wanted to include it to start an RfC and reach a consensus. Not like how it went in that discussion.

When it comes to WP:VNOT and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, it is a huge grey area with a significant community editorial discretion on article-by-article basis and from reliability of factual standpoint, there is nothing barring putting something like XYZ Middle School has strawberry milk on menu on Fridays; or that students who enroll at ABC Community College full time for an academic year receives a calendar year bus pass. If the school's site is cited, there's no reason to doubt the factual reliability, however whether such thing is due under WP:ABOUTSELF rests in consensus. If the policy defaulted to inclusion with the burden to reach consensus on those seeking to remove it, Wikipedia would drown in minutiae and advertisement added by marketing and public relations effort. Graywalls (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When was WP:ONUS moved out from WP:VNOT, and where was this discussed? It is a corollary to that; part of the confusion above seems to be because it was moved to its own section at some point. --Aquillion (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
December 2024: Semi-bold edit, preceded by discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 84#New Shortcut re “ONUS” section?. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to undo it last December. Special:Diff/1329927175 Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2026 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The revert[3] said "This was discussed and approved at the time", but I saw very little prior discussion[4] -- certainly not enough to establish consensus. Call for opinions: given the present far larger discussion, is the consensus for the December 2024 version as restored by User:Kolya Butternut, or the version that User:Blueboar reverted to (which is the current version)? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this discussion has nothing to do with the line breaks. It's about whether ONUS should say "include" vs "include, exclude, or change". But if you want to discuss the line breaks, we can do that. Here's the chart with the arguments as I've heard them:

Should the WP:ONUS sentence be a separate subsection or part of the previous paragraph?
Yes, a separate section.	No, part of the previous paragraph.
It gives us a clear place to put the shortcut, which helps editors understand which (single) sentence is actually WP:ONUS. It reduces the risk of someone invoking "ONUS" when they actually mean a different part of the policy. Being in a separate paragraph does not change the meaning of the rule.	When it was boldly added in 2014, it was originally at the end of an existing paragraph. Some people think that single-sentence paragraphs are bad writing style. Having it be part of a larger paragraph about not including all verifiable content softens the rule, so editors know that ONUS should be interpreted in the context of excluding content.

What would you add or change to that list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Some history… when I added the original paragraph (what is now VNOT) it did not include the sentence that is now ONUS. I mentioned “consensus” in my original paragraph simply to warn that verifiable information might be omitted if/when a consensus to omit exists (or is formed).

The addition of the ONUS sentence (and eventually the ONUS shortcut) flipped that original intent… requiring a consensus to include.

If we put ONUS back into VNOT the paragraph contradicts itself. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Can you say more about how the paragraph would contradict itself? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The first part (VNOT) says a consensus can omit… the second part (ONUS) says you need consensus to include. So which is it? do we need a consensus to omit or a consensus to include? It’s contradictory. Blueboar (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is. Everything is ultimately supposed to have consensus; in situations where we have no consensus, we decide whether to omit things or retain the status quo depending on several interlocking policies. But no outcome that lacks consensus should ever be considered stable and "we still haven't settled this" is a reason to continue discussions (this is one of the things I consider most poisonous about how WP:ONUS is frequently misinterpreted, in that it is sometimes cited as if it has some sort of power to end discussions, and frequently derails them as a result.) If we don't make that clear, people will be like "well we have no consensus so we omit, discussion is over" or "WP:ONUS, it's up to you to demonstrate consensus; as someone who wants to omit, I can remove this citing ONUS and have no responsibility at all to engage beyond that", which is absolutely not how things work - guidelines like WP:ONUS and WP:QUO essentially just propose ways to keep things going until consensus is reached, because we do have to have an actual live article at some point even when no version has a clear consensus. If we could leave it in a liminal state we would, but we can't. But anyone who intentionally leans on them as the endpoint of a discussion is misusing them ala WP:STONEWALL; once there is a dispute, you are always supposed to seek consensus for your preferred version, whether you want to include or omit something. Therefore it is correct to say that both omission and inclusion require consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement on what the policy should be… but that isn’t what ONUS says. It says inclusion requires consensus… period. That is why we need to either completely re-write ONUS … or cut it entirely (my preferred option). Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those are terrible ideas. 1) The text of articles are presumed to have consensus. 2) Which means, if it does not have consensus, it should not be the text.

The issue has always been, how do we get to sufficient consensus, and it is always been 'it depends', although we know it's often arrived at by who holds out the longest with enough craft to get by. We do not need more ammunition for getting whatever into articles, just because the proponent can say 'I have a source'. Indeed your prescription would lead to a worse Wikipedia on balance. And consensus is not just nice, it does what we think our reliability and usefulness arises from, more eyes taking care on the text. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But VNOT already addresses “I have a source”… It warns that other factors (including consensus) can omit. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That phrase has never been good enough, alone, which is why the follow up to that phrase has always discussed the onus. The second part clarifies the first, on "consensus". Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it clarifies… I think it confuses. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you close read the first without the other and you will find the first suggests., include must occur, never to be ousted, without a donnybrook. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I wrote the first part (now VNOT)… I know what it says quite well. I also know what the intent was. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That would suggest you are not an independent, nor impartial observer on its clarity and lack thereof. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever… I have a good enough reputation that I am not worried about that. Others can judge on their own. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alan, I don't tend to agree with you about the current wording, but I think all three of us have the same idea of what VNOT is meant to say and all want the VNOT wording to be clear. Since you can see a different way to read the current wording – and I know your views on getting nonsense out of articles are absolutely sound – then I have to conclude that a motivated wikilawyer would also be able to see that different understanding. So how about we work on re-write? What do you two think of this:

It must be possible for someone to find a source that supports any information in an article. However, being able to source the content is only the minimum threshold for inclusion, and citing a reliable source does not guarantee that the information belongs in that particular article, or in any Wikipedia article at all. Editors are allowed to remove both cited and uncited material from articles through the ordinary consensus-oriented processes of editing and discussion. They normally should remove information, even if it is fully cited, if they determine that its inclusion does not improve an article or if other policies and guidelines indicate that the material is inappropriate. Sometimes, the removed information can be presented instead in a different article.

Does that sound approximately like what VNOT is meant to say? Do you think that it would be more wikilawyer-proof than what we've got now?

[Tangent] While I'm thinking about material that may or may not belong anywhere in Wikipedia, let me invite you all to an overlooked CTOP RFC about Moroccanoil#Controversy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2 re ONUS: add text re both pro and con must support positions?

Onus says inclusion requires consensus because it's in the context of discussing adding things. Removing things and changing things also requires consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but that's in Wikipedia:Consensus and not in ONUS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Onus is included in Consensus, so we don't need Onus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:28, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that additions require consensus is included in WP:CON.

The idea that if an addition is contested, is it the responsibility of the would-be adder and not the would-be remover to form/demonstrate a cosnensus in favor of addition is AFAICT not present in WP:CON. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If content with consensus is removed do you think it is not the responsibility of the remover to form/demonstrate consensus in favor of the removal? It's the same as when an addition is made to change consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know that this newly removed content actually has consensus? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's stipulated in my question. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I asked, because what I need to do depends on how I know that the newly removed content actually has consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't what you need to do it's whether you have the onus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Same difference? According to the dictionary, you just wrote that "The question isn't what you need to do it's whether you have the obligation". Having the onus on you = it's something you have to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're not answering my question. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your question; did you not see my answer?

Let me spell it out in more detail:

Imagine that Alice adds cited content to an article. Bob dislikes it (for some plausible reason; Bob is not being unreasonable) and wants it removed. The discussion ends up with an RFC that produces a clear result, namely that the content will remain in this article.

A month later, Chris – who has no idea about the prior history – sees the cited content in the article and decides that this doesn't seem appropriate for this article (like Bob, Chris is not being unreasonable). So Chris removes the content.

I notice Chris's removal in my watchlist. I want to keep the content in this article.

"Now what?" you seem to be asking.

The answer is:

Under ONUS, it's my job and not Chris's to do whatever work is necessary to 'achieve consensus' for keeping the content in the article. In this case, due to the recent RFC, having the onus on me is not very onerous: I can revert Chris with an edit summary that says "Per Talk:Example#Huge RFC", and we're done.

If ONUS didn't exist, it would be Chris's job to get consensus for their desired change. But ONUS does exist, so that's not the rule that is in effect.

.

So what if there wasn't an RFC, or any evidence that a consensus actually exists? We can tell that story, too:

Imagine that Alice adds cited content to an article. Bob removes it.

Alice notices Bob's removal and wants to keep the content in this article.

Now what? The answer is:

Under ONUS, it's Alice's job and not Bob's to do whatever work is necessary to 'achieve consensus' for keeping the content in the article.

This means that Alice needs to start a discussion with Bob. (Bob is allowed to start a discussion, but the onus for starting the discussion isn't on him.) If they can't agree, then Alice needs to pursue ordinary dispute resolution processes. That means Alice needs to post a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion. (Again, Bob is allowed to do so, but the onus for doing so isn't on him.) If a third opinion isn't enough, then Alice needs to post a request for mediation at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Bob is still allowed to do so, but he's still not required to do so. If we need an RFC, then the onus is on Alice and not on Bob to get the RFC organized.

And so forth, through the whole process.

If ONUS didn't exist, then starting these discussions would instead be the responsibility of whoever is making a "change", and – critically – whenever editors both claimed that the other person's change was more of a change (because 'my' change is always the WP:STATUSQUO consensus version, so it's always 'you' that has to do the extra work), we would in practice have drama instead of a predictable process. ONUS stops that debate in all cases of addition vs removal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence is there for your interpretation? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The plain reading of the words on the page. Maybe also the fact that AFAICT nobody except you thinks I'm wrong? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you've been, but Onus is very much disputed. I plainly read the words differently than you do, but you're not providing evidence of practices. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The practice is that many editors can't keep BURDEN and ONUS straight in their minds. See, e.g., Talk:John Mearsheimer#WP:SOAP, in which @Hipal is accused of violating ONUS by removing something. See this comment and this one and many, many others, in which ONUS is named but the relevant rule is BURDEN. See Talk:Great Translation Movement#Removal of details critical of the movement, in which an IP says that ONUS imposes a WP:STATUSQUO rule.

Of the ones that aren't obviously referring to something else – try this search – the practice is that ONUS is invoked when the would-be includer is being told to stop trying to put the content back in the article and/or to start a discussion about whether to put the disputed content back in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So as I said, Onus just means you need consensus to add something. This is consistent with Consensus which requires consensus for any change to consensus. Yes, the hard part is figuring out what version has consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS: You have to achieve consensus to add something, but the other editor doesn't have to achieve consensus to remove it.
WP:CON: Everyone ultimately has to work together to achieve consensus for everything.

One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

but the other editor doesn't have to achieve consensus to remove it

Your "it" is referring to the bold edit to add something, not an edit removing something with silent consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, my "it" refers to any material on the page at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Onus doesn't say that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Note the absence of qualifying or restrictive words, such as "if it was a bold edit, but not if it's been there a long time" or "doesn't apply if the inclusion has silent consensus".

This sentence applies to all content whose inclusion is disputed.

Also, have a look at WP:SILENT, and see how many times it basically says that when there's a noisy dispute, you don't have silent consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And if consensus cannot be reached the result is the status quo version stays. If something has already been included and you want to remove it 20 years later, what's happening is you're trying to remove it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The onus is on the would-be includer to prove that there is a consensus to keep it, full stop. There is no "and if you can't, then after a short while, the onus stops being on the would-be includer to achieve consensus to include it, and starts being on the would-be excluder to achieve consensus to exclude it".

See also WP:STATUSQUO, which says it only applies during active, consensus-oriented discussions and not after they've concluded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOCON. Your Onus argument only applies to biographies. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's see WP:NOCON, especially the bit where it says that it's not imposing any rules and you should follow the policies and guidelines that it imperfectly summarizes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NOCON is not a summary of Onus or less specific than Onus. They are not contradictory; NOCON is just more clear. And Onus is a verifiability policy not an editing or consensus policy. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Say there was an RfC that established that portion of text last month. Katzrockso (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If there was an RFC that established that portion of text recently, and there's no reason to believe that the situation has changed, then I revert the removal with a link to the RFC in the edit summary.

ONUS requires me (not the blanker) to achieve consensus. In the case of a recent RFC, I have pre-achieved that consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The person who wants to remove the content has the onus to show that consensus has changed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS doesn't say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. This is how Consensus works. Kolya Butternut (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. This is how WP:ONUS works, and since we're actually talking about the single sentence in WP:ONUS, the whole, complex, vague, and variable approach to consensus in general is mostly off topic. Yes: Consensus is king, and it can be arrived at through many routes. No: Nothing about consensus on wiki gets the would-be adder free of the onus ("duty, responsibility, obligation, requirement") to demonstrate a positive consensus in favor of inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If we removed the onus sentence nothing about our policies would change because Consensus results in the same standards (as I interpret Onus). Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you ever "interpret Onus". I think you instead interpret an integrated idea of how consensus-based editing ought to work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Onus just means you need consensus to add things. It's not complicated. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS doesn't say that. It says "achieve consensus" not "achieve or show." According to the ONUS text you still have to convince the blanker. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite: ONUS doesn't say who you have to convince. You have to achieve a consensus, but the blanker could be on the losing side of that consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in your example there is only the proponent and the blanker. And ONUS does not say that the proponent can pre-achieve consensus. So -

If we can't look at anything other than what ONUS explicitly says, your statement that "In the case of a recent RFC, [the proponent has] pre-achieved that consensus." is incorrect, and
If we can look elsewhere then we can take WP:Consensus into consideration. And the proponent can show a pre-achievement of consensus.

So, can we look elsewhere? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If consensus is already achieved, ONUS doesn't say that you have to (rather pointlessly) go through the motions of re-achieving what already exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't say that you can "achieve" by showing a prior achievement. So saying "it doesn't say that" doesn't help us decide what ONUS means regarding a prior consensus.

I agree that it makes sense that you can point to a prior consensus, and if we look past the text of the sentence, that is the practice.

It seems to me the solution is to not make an "it doesn't say that" argument when editors point to other practices or policies that inform ONUS. Instead, explain why they don't apply. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Just a thought… perhaps one way to interpret ONUS is that it is focused on (and negates) the concept of “silent consensus”… Ie when some bit of material is removed, the editors wishing to keep the material can not claim a silent consensus… instead they need to go to the next level and achieve an actual (discussed) consensus to keep it. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever Onus means, it is subordinate to Consensus, which dictates these things. As I said, considering the policy to its logical conclusion, I don't think content in the lead of a highly trafficked article that has been there for 20 years would be removed if there were no consensus to keep it. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but not all articles are “high traffic”. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I think that is clear from these discussions (and the past... five years of discussions, I think it has been at this point) is that there is a lack of clear agreement on what ONUS means, how it's enforced, and so on; so I've added a note to it to that effect. I tried to word it as cautiously as I could; I'm open to alternative wordings but I do think that we need some sort of indicator so people understand that they could be stepping on a minefield by citing it or by applying what they personally see as an "obvious" implication of its text. --Aquillion (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed that for the moment. Open to seeing if anyone can come up with alternative wording, but it's not at all clear to me what someone is meant to do with that note. In practice, what does it mean for someone to "be cautious in citing it"? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What about just leaving: The precise meaning and intent behind this sentence is heavily disputed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, what is someone meant to do with that? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what someone is meant to do with that, but I feel confident predicting that what some editors would do with that is claim that ONUS can be ignored and that the onus is definitely not on them to achieve consensus for disputed content that they want to put in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you could re-write the ONUS sentence – "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" – to express the meaning of this one sentence more clearly, how would you rephrase it? NB that I'm specifically not looking for a whole explanation of all points of consensus. I'm looking for a rephrasing of this one/sole/isolated sentence. For example, would be be clearer to turn it around grammatically, from

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content

to

Any editor who wants to include disputed content has the responsibility to form a consensus to include the disputed material?

Or would clarity require a bigger change, such as:

Any editor who wants to include disputed content has the responsibility to form a consensus to include the disputed material before the disputed content can be re-added to the article?

or

Any editor who wants to include disputed content has the responsibility to form a consensus to include the disputed material; however, if no consensus can be found, BLP content should be removed and non-BLP content should be kept

or something like that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This covers it: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the ONUS sentence. "Let's just remove it" is not an answer to a question about how we could re-write this sentence to make it clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps: “When there is a dispute as to whether to include or omit verifiable content, follow the guidance set out at WP:Consensus.”.

Blueboar (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is a long discussion so I'm sure I've missed may details. Overall, I agree with WhatamIdoing's general take. ONUS, how ever it is worded, basically says that even if some claim has been in an article for a long time (silent/presumed consensus), if it's challenged then those who want to keep it need to either show prior consensus or establish a current consensus to keep the material in. Based on previous discussions I think it's worth adding that ONUS doesn't stand alone. Suppose I see some 10 year old claim in an article that I think is UNDUE thus I delete it. My justification for the removal can be "UNDUE" (hopefully with some additional explanation). My justification should not be "ONUS" as that implies that I don't think there was a consensus to add that text a decade back. Since the claim wasn't challenged back in the day we can assume an implied consensus. Where ONUS comes in is if someone reverts my removal saying something like "restoring long standing text" or "get consensus to remove". I can challenge that restoration by giving both my reason for removal and noting that per ONUS, this content is now in a NOCON state and thus should be deleted if we don't establish a consensus to include. If the policy text is to be edited I think it should make this more clear rather than water down the function of ONUS. IE, ONUS isn't the reason to initially remove the disputed text, rather it tells us how we should evaluate a NOCON claim regarding the content. Springee (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of the arguments over ONUS could be solved if it was made clear it's not a valid reason to challenge content, rather it backs up challenges (I'd even argue nothing in ONUS as it stands states you can remove content). Unfortunately I said the same thing three discussions and 100k words ago. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A different WP:ONUS question

If the 'onus' is on anyone who wants to add any text to the public-facing view of an article is always on the person adding the text...

Why doesn't WP:ONUS equally burden those adding any kind of maintenance tag, to prove it's validity immediately? It seems like a no-brainer and there is no clear or rational reason why any user shouldn't have any unfounded maintenance tag yanked summarily on WP:ONUS grounds. It is, after all, public-facing text. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:22, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It does already, surely? It's just that the maintenance tag is the "content" being added.

Under WP:WTRMT it seems pretty clear you can remove it rather easily if someone places it and doesn't bother opening a relevant discussion, or if you don't believe it to be appropriate. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can add a tag, anyone can remove it if they think it's unfounded. The first way of finding consensus is editing. I add a tag, you remove it, another editor readds it, then that is a form of consensus. Also there's nothing in ONUS that says you can remove content. There are many policy or guideline based reasons why content can be disputed and removed, ONUS only says the responsibility for finding consensus for inclusion is on the editor(s) wanting to include it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that those NOT wanting the content can point to ONUS and stonewall. Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you just go to 3O or DRN, and if someone continues to try and stonewall it'll be an easy block for disruptive editing. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Editors stonewalling is a behavioural problem, and certainly not limited to those not wanting inclusion. WP:Dispute resolution exists, editors can only stonewall as long as there are only two editors in a discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags – and other similar infrastructure, like AfD tags – are not content. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. There is a huge difference in content between "Professor Longhair was a blues pianist", "Professor^{[Citation Needed]} Longhair was a blues pianist", and "Professor Longhair was a blues^{[Citation Needed]} pianist". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The cn tags are not part of our content, in the sense of Wikipedia:Contents. They're temporary notes to other editors (and potential editors) that something about the actual content (e.g., the claim Longhair is a professor, or that the genre is blues) needs to be addressed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If I type something, hit the publish button and the result is that everyone who reads Wikipedia sees some extra words in the middle of some other content, that is itself content.

No amount of Wikilawyering turns words that the reader sees into anything other than content. It could even be a BLP violation if inserted with bad intent. Even adding a category can violate our content policies, even when technically accurate. Adding Category:Primates to the Obama page would be a quick way to get blocked for violating BLP.

We say that Penn Jillette claims to have never had a puff of marijuana or a drop of alcohol, with a citation to that claim. Putting a citation needed tag after the word marijuana would change the meaning to something like "Penn Jillette claims to have never had a puff of marijuana (we have no independent evidence that this particular claim is true) or a drop of alcohol." It would call into question his claim about marijuana without calling into question his claim about alcohol, which the current wording does not. That's a change of meaning.

We have ways of communicating with other editors where non-editing readers have to make at least a small effort to put what we add in front of their eyeballs. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an area in which rigid thinking is helpful. A fact tag is not "content", using the definition of the word content that means refers to things that are part of an encyclopedia article, and not (e.g.,) whatever happens to be inside the HTML <body> tag. For example, a fact tag is not content when using the definition that is relevant for a sentence saying "all content in articles must be verifiable". All content must be verifiable, but {{fact}} tags don't have to be verifiable, because they aren't "content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A fact tag communicates distrust in the language to readers. That is content. Ditto for landing on an article with a soup of tags up top. Someone tried to shove a bunch on an article I'm working on here, which were yanked as unhelpful by myself and others: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leik_Myrabo&oldid=1336566897

All nonsense as seen by the actual and live version of the article, of course. If I hadn't been present, for as long as those were improperly there, it absolutely is a 'content' message and I agree with @Guy Macon. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:47, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If such was implemented, it would become like defending patent troll litigations, except that corporate public relations interest would get an upper hand making it difficult for COI issues to be tagged when someone notices PR promotional corporate benefitting contents are discovered. Graywalls (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But why would anyone put a COI/PROMO tag, but not fix the issue or raise what it is? We're literally NOT supposed to leave a tag and only leave a tag. The "should not" rule is one of our sillier ones. It should be a "shall not". — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:32, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the tag. Sometimes I'll find articles that are poorly sourced but never tagged, so will try and find sources and fix but if not I'll stub and tag.

Meanwhile if I find a tagged article from years ago that's never been resolved I'll do a basic WP:BEFORE and if it's still crap PROD or AfD it and use the lack of fixing despite years of tags as part of the justification.

One of my personal bugbears on Wikipedia are people saying "Keep" in AfD because they claim to find sources to meet GNG and then never actually add them to the article, but that's another matter. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Very Polite Person:, The tags are visible to those who are looking at categories with certain tags. So it's a step before sending to COI or NPOV/N. It's a way of advertising the issue and seeking help and WP:TIND to get the issue addressed. If I just prune the promo contents, sometimes others will come along expecting that I should have fixed it and found sources.

@Rambling Rambler:, Those inclusionists are those who feel strongly about keeping the contents and only because they feel strongly about it, yet don't want to put in the time to fix it themselves and are often only interested in making sure the article gets retained with what they want retained whether or not it's properly sourced. Graywalls (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If a 4,000 word article is predominantly about how the subject is the greatest there is and is widely beloved by everyone, then placing a PROMO tag is a perfectly reasonable response. If I were to demand the first person who said something fix it themselves, then I'd be an asshole. Unless you are willing to dedicate your life to fixing every issue you see the moment you see it, then your options are to tag it or pretend you didn't see it. The former is more helpful than the latter. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:43, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If you're adding a maintenance tag that isn't self-explanatory, then the informal expectation is that you've also started a discussion on the talk page. Then the tag functions as a notice of the discussion. But in many cases the tag is self-explanatory. WP:WTRMT gives some advice. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 04:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are also discussion requirements for POV tags, because we've had so many problems with people thinking that it's obvious what's wrong with the article. (And it often is obvious to the person adding the tag, just not necessarily to anyone else.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Asking the editor who added something like a POV tag "why?" is always an option. If that editor has disappeared or is unresponsive, then the active editor has a stronger case for removing the tag if they are sincerely not able to detect the issue. I occasionally add "citation needed" tags under the assumption that the issue is obvious. Especially in cases where the article relies heavily on offline sources such as books, editors who notice the lack of a citation cannot be expected to solve the problem on the spot, but if any editor asks me why I placed the tag, I am always willing to discuss the issue. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.

But I'm also telling you: We have instituted a requirement specifically for the {{POV}} and related tags, that require a discussion – a currently-going-on, active attempt to resolve the problem, not just a sentence on the talk page six years ago – or the tag can be summarily removed by any editor. (Other editors aren't required to remove those tags, but they are allowed to.) We did this because some people saw those tags as a way of "warning the reader" that they disagreed with an NPOV-compliant article, rather than as a way of trying to get the article improved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think that POV is a special case because it is often subjective; more specific issues like sourcing problems or verification failures are relatively easy for experienced editors to glance over and come to an agreement on, most of the time, but POV is often this nebulous concern that can't be fully answered. And in particular those "badge of shame" POV tags that tend to last forever are often because someone dislikes the overarching things an article say but isn't able to identify a specific problem beyond "this article is too [negative / positive]" or the like, which is hard to answer absent a massive in-depth source dive, and sometimes not even then. So we needed some way to remove those POV tags without requiring a full RFC every time. --Aquillion (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The persistant tag thing crossed with the "won't explain or fix or address" thing is beyond intolerable and shouldn't be tolerated.

If I:

Leave a tag.
Don't do shit to explain (in an ACTIONABLE way),
or don't deal with it myself,
in a reasonable time period like one calendar month,
and I'm off doing "other Wikipedia things" the whole time...

I have no right or say or recourse if anyone else removes the tag. If I re-add it then, and don't deal with it in a week, while off doing "other wiki things" again, and it gets removed again...

This should be my allowed recourse:

Get fucked.

We should get to the point of what this is usually all about. Person leaves tag and then saunters off to do other things, or simply expects the tag to stay and others to "figure it out".

No. YOU throw a tag, YOU deal with it, or YOU can watch it be removed; keep re-adding it and it's a disruptive tenditious action.

Why are we so afraid to make people own their tagging, like other edits? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:01, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I remove tags where I can't understand them, after looking in the usual places for understanding. (I also don't think of tags as content, they are editing notes). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% against others owning any responsibility or even WP:AGF effort to suss out another person's tags, ever. If I tag something, and don't do anything with that tag, it's basically a nonsense edit. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For me, I don't think I always don't understand why a tag is there, only sometimes. I would suppose that goes along with knowing what the various policies are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But since policy interpretation are subjective, and your NPOV tag may mean something different than it does for me... the 'onus' still has to be on the tagger.

Why should the entire project ever accomodate any one editor who, good faith or not, sticks a metal rod between moving gears? Now, there may be a very, very good reason for the metal rod. But if that person won't explain it in a logical and clear/obvious way others can address, and goes off to do other things instead leaving the metal rod in place... that person has no say if we yank the rod out, nor should we have to spend anything but obvious brain power on seeing if it has merit. If we can't see it, yank it, and don't even follow up. Onus is on tagger/rod inserter.

We all have finite time to work on our hobby here. If someone drops a surprise NPOV tag on something I'm doing but won't or cannot explain what EXACT words and sentences are a problem and why, why even are they entitled to leave that tag there, or even struggle to keep it in if I remove it?

Tags don't carry any special extra mojo. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who is trying to communicate something to others has to communicate it effectively. So, sure it depends on their audience. There are many tags trying to communicate many different things, so it will depend on the situation. I guess, I don't know what a surprise tag is, if by that you mean a tag that that is not self evident, than yes that's going to need a note field filled out, or a talk page post, etc. Eg. If I come across a "tone" tag with no explanation, that seems it's asking me to look at the tone, and either I'm going to conclude there are some tone adjustments I think best or I'm going to just delete the tag because I looked and it is fine to me (the tagger asked "me", an editor, and I've delivered what I can, the best I can. If the tagger failed to give better direction, that's on them.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated because while inappropriate "I don't like the fact that this article summarizes the sources accurately" drive-by tagging is certainly a thing, it is also true that Wikipedia policy can be complex, making it hard for inexperienced editors to articulate a problem. I have absolutely run into cases where someone slaps a vague POV tag on an article and when I look at it I immediately spot a bunch of glaring problems - they probably wouldn't have known to specifically say "we're giving undue weight to source X, source Y is bad, source Z is a contested opinion presented as a fact" etc etc etc, but they could look at the article and realize something was off. I think that while ultimately we can push people to articulate more specific problems if we can't spot the issue at a glance, POV tags and the like do have some utility in terms of calling in more experienced editors who can break it down into something more actionable, and that ideally experienced editors should at least glance over the article the first time they encounter the tag before removing it. The problem is when, after looking over the article and finding no clear problems, someone tries to insist that the tag needs to stay, or if it just lingers forever with no discussion. That's why "is there active discussion?" is a good threshold for removal. --Aquillion (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Aquillion, both here and above.

Some tags are self-explanatory. For example, {{citation needed}} means someone wants a little blue clicky number there. Sometimes I agree with them; sometimes I don't. Sometimes I add a source; sometimes I don't. But I don't need an explanation or an ongoing discussion, and I don't usually care if that tag lingers for years.

In other cases, the tag isn't self-explanatory, but the problem is obvious. I've removed a lot of POV tags over the years, but I've also left a lot of old ones on the page, because the problem was obvious enough that I didn't need an explanation.

I think that the current system of allowing, but not requiring, the removal of unexplained POV tags is basically working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, "working for who?" Pretty much everything above is from the perspective of a Wikipedia editor. What about the person who only reads Wikipedia? There are a lot more of them than there are of us. That person sees a big scary notice telling them that there is something wrong with the page they are reading. That's fine if there actually something wrong with the page they are reading, but a lot of these tags that linger for years are for issues that went away years ago, and a fair number of them -- especially POV tags with no talk page discussion -- were bullshit the day they were placed by a drive-by tagger. The reader shouldn't have to see those. Even worse, pages that get a lot of editor attention typically don't have zombie POV tags but obscure pages that have been stable for a long time often do.

What I would like to see is an automated system for tags that require discussion that deletes the tag from the article if 24 hours go by without a talk page entry by the person who placed the tag and creates a section on the talk page so we editors know that someone tagged it and can address the issue if we choose. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if it would be possible to make some tags invisible to readers via CSS after a certain amount of time (e.g., tag placed in January is visible to everyone for the rest of that month plus all of February, but after March, only registered/logged-in editors can see the tag). The categories would still exist, so various tools and bots would still work. This would be consistent with our idea that articles should have Wikipedia:No disclaimers, and there is some precedent with the {{orphan}} tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps after some time, the tag adds a new line: "Is this tag outdated? If so, please click the [Edit] button and remove it." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What I would like to see is an automated system for tags that require discussion that deletes the tag from the article if 24 hours go by without a talk page entry by the person who placed the tag and creates a section on the talk page so we editors know that someone tagged it and can address the issue if we choose.

So a bot that does this?

Job 1:

Article has a POV/NPOV tag
Tag's been there more than one week (7 days)
Talk page has not been edited by the tagger after the tag went on the article
Tagger has been editing in the past week since the tag
Bot summarily nukes the tag

Job 2:

Article has a POV/NPOV tag
Tag's been there more than one month
Tagger has not edited the talk page in two weeks (14 days)
Bot summarily nukes the tag

Like that? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

KoduKe

Värsked postitused

Most Used Categories

USA kutsub saatkonna töötajad ja pereliikmed kiirkorras Iisraelist ära

Anekdoot: kaks sõpra ootavad taevaväravate ees oma järjekorda

Tõnu Kõrvits: kirjutan iga oma teost kui viimast

Euroopa Liidu kirjandusauhinnale on nomineeritud ka Lilli Luuk

Anekdoot: Jaan abiellus eelmisel laupäeval

Keemiline salakaubavedu rajab teed kassikullast päikesepaneelideni

TalTechi aasta parim teadlane aitab murda plastisõltuvust, aasta noorteadlane muudab elektrisüsteemid targemaks

Mida sa pärast lõunasööki tavaliselt teed?

„See peab jääma viimaseks abinõuks.“ Riik tahab laiendada õigust ohtlikke patsiente ohjeldada

Jüri Ratas: maksutõusud kahjustavad inimeste elujärge