Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Catch 22 re ONUS vs NOCON

Wikilawyers rejoice! We have had multiple discussions and even some RFCs… and it is obvious to me that the community can not reach a consensus on ONUS vs NOCON.

That raises an interesting situation for wikilawyers - if we apply ONUS to ONUS itself, we can say that those who want to keep it have failed to achieve consensus, and thus we should remove it. However, if we apply NOCON to ONUS, we can say that the default of no consensus is to keep the long standing language and not remove it.

Catch 22… the wording of our preferred P&G instruct us to do the opposite of what we prefer! Just noting the absurdity of it all. Carry on. Blueboar (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Please update Wikipedia:Verifiability/Onus as you see more discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The community outside a few regular editors here seem to have no problems with ONUS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

No one knows what ONUS means. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Activeletereste ~2026-34236-21 (talk) 14:33, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

It might be that 'the community having no problem with WP:Onus' is connected to their not being aware of it or not thinking through its implications. IMO, there should be a clearly delineated list of reasons for which it is acceptable to remove sourced information. Otherwise, WP:Onus makes it look as if there is a carte blanche for anyone to remove anything at whim - as long as there isn't a clear majority against the removal (which may be just because [almost] nobody is watching the page), you can just repeat 'there is no consensus for keeping the information'. There is no shortage of people willing to censor information they don't like.--Anonymous44 (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

As I have attempted in the past, one solution is to just add a note to ONUS indicating that it is disputed. We just have to come up with appropriate wording. That will, hopefully, both discourage people from citing it without fully understanding the implications, and encourage people who think they have a clear-cut understanding of it to weigh in here so we can eventually figure out what to do with it and / or how to refine it. --Aquillion (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

We could tag it with {{under discussion inline}}, and skip discussions about "appropriate wording". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The "list of reasons" is already sketched out in note C. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Then the section should refer to that list and link to it in order to avoid misunderstandings.--Anonymous44 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

​It's also used to justify the removal of content when there's a numerical majority (in my experience, even a very simple one) that disputes the inclusion of content, regardless of the points they or others have presented. It essentially boils down to 'if there's disagreement over inclusion, it doesn't get included'.

CSGinger14 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

S Marshall's clear-cut understanding of ONUS

• ONUS gives us a process for dealing with a fact or claim that's verifiable, but in the wrong article.
• It's the rule that enables editors to move any fact or claim, including a fact or claim that's meticulously cited, to the article that's most appropriate for it.
• Because it involves moving material that's properly cited, WP:V is one of the most natural places where editors would tend to look for the rule.
• It has interactions with WP:PRESERVE. Looking at the two policies together, they mean that if the fact or claim belongs anywhere in the encyclopaedia, it must be moved rather than deleted.
• It has interactions with WP:UNDUE. Looking at the two policies together, they mean that if there's dispute about where to put the fact or claim, process means we tend to put it in the less prominent place. This can be good or bad.
• It's important for dealing with marketers and people with an agenda, who often won't want you to move their well-cited fact or claim to a place that gives it less prominence. I find it useful and well-thought-out in that situation.
• It's useful for those who want to whitewash an article. In that situation it's easily misused.
• There might be a perfect wording for WP:ONUS, but nobody knows what it is.
• In my experience it can and sometimes does directly conflict with WP:NOCON, specifically when a fact or claim that's been in the article for a long time gets disputed. This situation isn't all that common, though. This from five years ago is the most recent one in my RfC close log.
• When the dispute is between good faith editors who're displaying good judgment, I have personally tend to prefer WP:ONUS over WP:NOCON because ONUS is in a core content policy.

Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 16:25, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This is a way to cut the Gordian knot, though: ONUS isn't a blank check to remove whatever you want. Sourced info that is overweight or misplaced but otherwise solid should be relocated to a subtopic or related article. Andre🚐 04:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

If an editor is going around removing content and giving no good reason than ONUS, they should be taken to ANI. Nothing in ONUS states that you can remove content. If editors do give a good policy based reason to remove content, why should it be restored elsewhere without considering that challenge. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That argument doesn't hold water on Wikipedia with the present state of the editing culture and the online dispute resolution mechanism state of the art such as it is. For example, I have seen admins and even an arb or other most trusted users "cite ONUS" to remove something despite not another substantive argument. Diffs can be furnished on request. The counterargument may be as Blueboar says (a substantive argument is any coherent argument, not an argument that has evidence and logic (either statutory so to speak, or precedence)) Or consider recent arbcom cases where the fundamental problem was an editor stonewalling while a cadre of likeminded fellows saw no problem at ANI for whatever reason. The remedy "ONUS-stonewalling just go to ANI/AE/RFAr" to me, is a forest-trees problem. The community doesn't agree whether ONUS is a blank check. Many people are arguing that it is not, which I agree with at this point, (re S Marshall below), but saying "ONUS abuse is sanctionable" today, isn't defensible on the existing data. Andre🚐 21:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to your concern regarding "just go to ANI". I wish there was something like a referee to help with some of these disputes. Someone who wouldn't weigh in on content and wouldn't hand out penalties but would help when editors feel people aren't following the proper process for solving issues. Editor A adds something new. Editor B reverts it with a reasonable justification (UNUDE with at least a bit of reasoning). If Editor A restores then the referee could say, no, revert and go to the talk page. This might stop some of the edit warring where Editor A thinks B is wrong so they don't follow BRD/NOCON while Editor B gets frustrated that people aren't following the process. A RfC, if held, might show Editor B is wrong. Even a decently attended talk page discussion might do that. However, Editor A should not bypass the process and a ref could point that out. Springee (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

SAN@S Marshall ~2026-42517-72 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

What's a SAN?—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre, I wonder, if you check a few of those diffs, if any of those disputes had no explanation at all in prior edit summaries or discussions. This might be reasonable:

• Alice adds content
• Bob reverts with an edit summary of "WP:UNDUE"
• Alice disagrees and re-reverts.
• Bob reverts again, with an edit summary of "Rv per WP:ONUS"

I think going to ANI with a dispute about overreliance on ONUS is likely to be about as effective as going to ANI to complain that someone isn't using any edit summaries, or that their edit summaries are always unhelpfully vague ("Edit"). Sometimes, if several people at ANI say "Not going to block you over this, but you really should do better", then the editor will make an effort to improve. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with most of this… but a few thoughts: 1) sometimes there isn’t a “more appropriate article” to move the disputed material to. In this situation ONUS would indicate complete removal. 2) ONUS should be seen as process, not justification for removal. When there is a dispute, those wishing to move/remove the content do need to explain why they think the material should be moved/removed. Then ONUS kicks in and those wishing to keep it as is need to gain consensus to not move/remove. Blueboar (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  This, pretty much. I remove stuff all the time but when I do I'm saying under what grounds in the edit summary and ONUS isn't a grounds for removal. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

• Material in the article for a substantial time has "implied consensus". It doesn't lose that if someone removes it without giving a reason for its removal. It only becomes "disputed" if someone makes a case against it. The situation is different for new content. If something is added and immediately removed with "we need to discuss that first", it is enough to trigger ONUS. Zero^talk 13:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  “Implied consensus" is extremely weak. It assumes that multiple editors have seen the “long standing” text and have no issues with it. Sometimes that assumption is correct (especially in high-traffic articles)… However, at other times the assumption is incorrect.

  In a low-traffic article, an editor might add something that sits quietly for a year (or more) before anyone notices it. Indeed the addition might be challenged by the next editor to visit the page - a year later! In such situations, the challenged addition would not have “implied consensus” simply because it was in the article for a long time. Blueboar (talk) 15:17, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  There's also just the fact that a lot of times, editors simply can't be arsed to stir up a hornet's nest by challenging stuff. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I think that it's extremely important to underline that implicit consensus is ultimately based on the number of people who at the very least saw something and accepted it (and ideally actually edited it and accepted it.) It doesn't apply to things that people have been objecting to for a while even if it has remained in the article - especially not stuff that has been constantly removed and then reverted back in, but also stuff that just has eg. a comment on the talk page saying "wait that's wrong, right?" Another thing I'd add is that all forms of consensus exist in a spectrum and implicit consensus has to be considered relative to the current state of discussion. If something is longstanding in a highly visible part of a reasonably high-traffic article, and discussion leans towards retaining it, that's a strong argument that it should remain in place. If the "discussion" consists of just two or four people who are evenly split, I would say that that's when implicit consensus becomes important, with the people arguing for removal needing to demonstrate something to overcome that; the thing to do is to seek wider opinions, but the most disruptive interpretation of ONUS, IMHO, is the one where people say "all right now I'm gonna take this out and you need an RFC to put it back" even when only a tiny number of people have actively weighed in. But if discussions lean even slightly against inclusion that's another story, and you'd need truly historically strong "implicit" consensus (to the point where it's basically explicit, eg. you can point to past discussions with lots of editors that obviously assumed it should stay) to argue that it should stay. --Aquillion (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  Is this recommendation, that when just two or four people who are evenly split, I would say that that's when implicit consensus becomes important, with the people arguing for removal needing to demonstrate something to overcome that, supposed to apply only to removals?

  Many disputes aren't really about removal, or removal wouldn't solve the problem. For example, I've been told that the RFC years ago about the first sentence at Trans woman ended with no consensus, but we keep the no-consensus sentence in place because there must be a first sentence in an article, and there's no consensus for any sentence. So:

  • no consensus from the RFC years ago, so there's no real consensus;
  • it's been heavily contested for years, so there's no implicit consensus;
  • but: as a practical matter we can't actually have an article with no first sentence (even if you blanked the current first sentence, whatever's left would instantly become the new first sentence, and if you don't do a bit of fiddling with the former second sentence, it probably won't comply with MOS:FIRST), so we left it in.

  What should we do? Nothing, I think. Maybe have another RFC if someone comes up with a brilliant solution someday. But I wouldn't characterize a dispute like that as arguing for removal; I'd characterize it as arguing for a change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

  In addition to low traffic articles, there are times when material gets in to a high traffic/contentious article as part of a large series of changes. An editor makes a change to 3 parts of the article, two of those result in immediate reverts/revisions/talk discussions. The third simply may have been lost in the shuffle of all the other changes. Presumably, if something is part of a high traffic article we should be able to point to something showing consensus for inclusion. Conversely, if the content is obviously due reaching a consensus on a high traffic article would should be relatively easy. Springee (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think that removal itself (under any circumstances that make us believe it's not vandalism or an error) is an actual objection to having the content on the page. Something as benign as copyediting is a challenge to the implicit consensus. What I think throws some people off is that you can lose an implicit/silent consensus and still have a real consensus. For example, a little while ago, an editor blanked an entire hot-button article during a discussion. We have a real consensus to keep that article, but the meaning was clear enough: that editor did not agree that the article should exist at all. ONUS could have been applied, and the "achieve consensus" step would have been achieved merely by reverting with an edit summary inviting them to look at the nine(!) prior trips to AFD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

  Zero says "Material in the article for a substantial time has 'implied consensus'." The same goes for material in the article for a nanosecond. In both cases, the implied consensus ends when an editor objects for a substantive reason (and "discuss first" is not substantive). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but also remember that substantive does not necessarily mean policy based. Comments such as “I think this is too trivial to mention” or “The paragraph flows better without this” are substantive reasons for removal, even though they don’t point to any specific WP policy that is being violated. Blueboar (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I 100% agree. Your examples tell the reverted editor what the reverting editor thinks needs to be discussed first if the reverted editor wants to press the matter. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I also agree, and I think we need more official {{policy}} pages to contain phrases like "for reasons based in common sense, Wikipedia's rules, reliable sources, etc." Editors seem to forget that common sense and good judgment are valid reasons for taking (or not taking) an action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Under editing consensus (the usual and most widespread form of consensus), what is in the article is evidence of consensus. The issue is 'how do you overcome that evidence of consensus' and in reality it varies in the circumstance, but the end result is the same, as long as it remains in the article, it is evidence of consensus.

Consensus of what? The consensus is, consensus that it substantially complies with policy/guideline and improves the article as an encyclopedia article. So, think about what it means when there are serious doubts (actual non consensus) about varifiability, pov, blp, cvio, etc, or even serious doubts over the ability of the general reader to understand and comprehend what is written in our sometimes prolix articles or tangential passages, that may be lost in the trees, missing the forest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't that same logic mean that content removed from an articles doesn't have consensus. As the evidence for it's consensus was that it was included. Also saying that content in an article automatically shows that the content complies with policy and improves the articles is more than a stretch. There is substantial amounts of long term content that isn't policy compliant, that noone has corrected it doesn't mean it's actually compliant. Many editors may have looked at it and decided they had better things to do then try to sort out the mess. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

No or perhaps, yes: a removal done appropriately is raising an argument that the passage does not have consensus (for consensus, see my consensus on what section). That it is in the article is evidence of consensus, that evidence can be and is regularly overcome, usually in editing consensus, or in more formal discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Another problem with “implied consensus” is that “consensus can change”. If we remember this, then the question to ask is whether consensus has changed or not?

If adding something, and having it sit uncontested for a while, “implies” consensus… then removing it “implies” that consensus has changed (or at least, might have changed).

So… when text with an “implied consensus” is removed, we can not simply default to “No… this is consensus”. We need need to dig deeper… and either reaffirm the previous consensus, or reach a new consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Except implied consensus might also be actual and present. And reaffirming may be as simple as editing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that what is in the article is sometimes evidence of consensus. Other times, it's evidence of one 'side' being more successful at edit warring than the other. Or an enthusiast filling an article with hundreds of details, and nobody has enough energy to oppose them. Some of these 'explanations' take months, and at the end, the person only hears "I've been told I can't do this" and never grasps "because a comprehensive catalog of every single Pokemon character ever seen, complete with detailed descriptions, is not encyclopedic content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

All that said, I wish we had a way of encouraging real blue pencil editors to comb through our articles as ruthlessly as needed. I have seen a few and its generally awsome. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Antique value? In my view, given the level of multidimensional suggestions above, this discussion will achieve no result. But I feel I need to make a couple of comments for clarity.

• "Time based implied consensus" is meaningless given the large number of articles and not so many editors per article. Once again, let me mention Jar'Edo Wens. Is 9 years enough for implied consensus? No, no, no.

• Justifying well sourced text is already handled by page watchers in most cases. Deletion of unsourced text should require no onus except a talk page mention. Look at the disaster called Unix security that I happened to play with a few days ago. Did the totally outdated material there have implied consensus? No way.

When we come across outdated, banal and unsourced items, we just have to get rid of them, regardless of their value as antiques. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, a time based consensus argument will only arise if someone makes that argument, and it will only likely be successful, if it is something like, 'this has been in the article a long time because, [good reason, good reason, good reason]'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If they have several valid reasons for keeping the item (eg reliable sources) then antique value matters not, given that the essay WP:STATUS QUO is not even a guideline and has no impact. I do not antiques, specially in technical articles. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that they'll only be successful if they have good reasons. QUO frequently gets invoked precisely because there aren't good reasons, beyond ILIKEIT. Invoking QUO as a justification for keeping an older version of an article in place is a bit like saying that your statement is protected by free speech: If you had a better argument than "Well, it's not actually illegal to say it", then you'd have used that better argument. Here, if you had a better argument than "Well, it's been like that for a long time", then you'd be using it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Iteration

• ONUS gives us a process for dealing with a fact or claim that's verifiable, but in the wrong article.
• Only use ONUS when you give a reason for your change. ONUS is not a reason---it's a process.
• A key purpose of ONUS is to enable editors to move any fact or claim, including a fact or claim that's meticulously cited, to the article that's most appropriate for it.
• If there's no appropriate article, the options are either to start one, or else delete the disputed fact or claim.
• Because ONUS involves moving material that's properly cited, WP:V is a natural place where editors would tend to look for the rule.
• It interacts with WP:PRESERVE to mean that if the fact or claim belongs anywhere in the encyclopaedia, it must be moved rather than deleted.
• It interacts with WP:UNDUE to mean that if there's dispute about where to put the fact or claim, we tend to put it in the less prominent place. This can be good or bad.
• It's important for dealing with marketers and people with an agenda, who often won't want you to move their well-cited fact or claim to a place that gives it less prominence. It's helpful and well-thought-out in that situation.
• It's also useful for those who want to whitewash an article. This can lead to misuse.
• Editors should be mindful that longstanding versions of the article don't necessarily have consensus, particularly for low-traffic articles. The best way to tell whether a fact or claim has consensus is where it's been specifically discussed on the talk page. It probably also has consensus if it's been edited by a number of different editors over a reasonable period of time without challenge.
• (On the gripping hand:) We seem to be implying that where there's an apparent conflict between WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON, WP:NOCON prevails where there's some evidence that the fact or claim has consensus, and otherwise WP:ONUS prevails?

Comments of any kind are welcome but I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on those last two points, please? I've extrapolated them from what I think we're saying.—S Marshall T/C 21:31, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm broadly in favor of this. Andre🚐 21:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I think this is a good summary of where we currently stand… I don’t agree with all of it (for example, I still maintain that WP:V is the wrong place to say all of this, although I do understand your rational for why it is here)… however, most of my concerns are more quibbles than objections. It is definitely overly wordy, so we will need to brainstorm better wording if we put this in the policy. Alternatively, perhaps this could be made into an explanatory essay or guideline page to supplement the current terse language. The one thing I do know is that I need to take a break. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Yes: I hope that we're headed for an explanatory essay about WP:ONUS which would be linked from (I suggest) ONUS, NOCON, UNDUE and PRESERVE.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with the first point (and by extentension some others), onus should generally also apply to disputes about verifiability, including whether the source supports the claim and whether the source is sufficient (reliable) for the claim. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Isn’t that handled by WP:BURDEN? Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

A dispute about whether there is consensus that the burden is satisfied -- no. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't say ONUS doesn't apply to those situations. It begins with "ONUS gives us a process..." If it began with, "One of the things ONUS does is to give us a process...", would that be OK by you? I propose to table the question of whether ONUS does anything else for the moment.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

My friend, iteration often means an endless loop. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

In my experience it's usually an endless loop, on Wikipedia policy pages! But the occasional exception makes iterating worthwhile.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Alan, we simplified BURDEN years ago: If there's a little blue clicky number at the end, and the person who put it there claims to genuinely believe that FakeWebsite.com is a reliable source, then we're done with BURDEN. This has reduced our Wikipedia:Bring me a rock problems, and we no longer have as many disputes about whether there is consensus that BURDEN is fulfilled.

Instead, we have disputes about whether the cited source is reliable and/or verifies the claim made. One thing that's not so clear in this policy is what happens in {{failed verification}} or {{unreliable source inline}} situations. I think this is partly because we don't need it (editors mostly do the right thing, so telling them what to do is WP:CREEPY), but also because we don't want to hand weapons to the "if it's not copyvio, then it's OR" minority. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I know that's been written but surely it can't actually mean that a burden is satisfied by a subjective belief of one person, when what we need is agreement that the objective factors (direct support, and qualified source) have been satisfied. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

The BURDEN is satisfied by the subjective belief of one person. WP:V in general, however, is not satisfied. The process we want don't want looks like this:

• A: Adds uncited (and possibly bad) content
• B: Issues a WP:CHALLENGE
• A: Adds a citation
• B: "That's a lousy source! Go fetch another source!"
• A: Adds another citation
• B: "That's a lousy source! Go fetch another source!"
• A: Adds another citation
• B: "That's a lousy source! Go fetch another source!"
• A: Adds another citation
• B: "That's a lousy source! Go fetch another source!"
• A: Gives up

The process we do want could look like this (i.e.,this is one of several different desirable things):

• A: Adds uncited (and possibly bad) content
• B: Issues a WP:CHALLENGE
• A: Adds a citation
• B: "That's a lousy source! I spent a few minutes in my favorite search engine, and I don't see any reliable sources that directly support this claim. I'm removing this from the article."

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, its called the, "burden to demonstrate verifiability". And, it remains, the burden is only, "satisfied by providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So, burden is not satisfied by 'providing one inline citation to a [UN]reliable source[, or] that [DOES NOT] directly support[] the contribution.'

And note [c], which has the language about belief, makes clear that providing the individually believed in source is not the end. The satisfaction of the burden needs be confirmed in agreement with others, that 1) the source is contextually reliable, and 2) it directly supports the contribution. (In addition to other issues). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, eventually we need to come up with an actually reliable source. But the burden on the OP is limited: They have to supply one source that they believe (genuinely but possibly incorrectly) is reliable for this statement. Usually, their source is reliable, so that's the end of that dispute.

Sometimes it's not reliable. For example, I remember someone copy/pasting AIDS denialist garbage from virusmyth.net; he genuinely believed it was correct. When the OP has supplied one (1) source that they genuinely but incorrectly believe is reliable, then the BURDEN is fulfilled. At that point, we move on to ordinary WP:V procedures, the relevant points of which I'd summarize as:

• Everything that needs an inline citation should get one before the WP:DEADLINE.
• Once we're done with BURDEN, supplying a citation to an actually reliable source is anyone's/everyone's problem.
• Unreliable sources can be removed.
• Uncited material (including material that is uncited because you removed a citation to a source that was deemed unreliable during the BURDEN phase) can be tagged or removed per WP:CHALLENGE.
• If the material is removed as a CHALLENGE, it can't be restored until an actually-reliable source is provided.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The burden was not fulfilled under the plain language of the policy. It is expressly not "satisfied" by an "[un]reilible source" and it can't be satisfied by a source that does not "directly support". Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

We do not intend BURDEN to be an endless game of WP:FETCH. You only have to present one (1) source. We expect you to do so as a genuine effort to prove that the material can be supported by a reliable source, but if your genuine effort is inadequate, then we are not going to make you present another source, and another, and another. The BURDEN is fulfilled when you've provided one (1) source.

After your one (1) source is rejected, as explained in the footnote, the material can be WP:CHALLENGED (including removal). Restoring CHALLENGED material requires at least an implicit consensus that the provided source is reliable. But BURDEN is not CHALLENGE; BURDEN only requires one (1) fair attempt.

How do you think we could re-word BURDEN to make this clearer, with an emphasis on it being clear to people who will dislike this limitation on BURDEN? We have many editors who would rather order other editors to WP:FETCH sources than do any work themselves. The one-source limit in BURDEN was added specifically to stop that game and force deeper discussions and compromises. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

What we intend BURDEN to be is to clearly state what is needed to satisfy it, and what is needed to satisfy it is "providing one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution" If you don't do that, you have not satisfied the burden - plain as day. The limit is not to "one source", and never has been, its to one source that has the required qualities. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

In the footnote, what do you suppose we meant when we wrote words like "any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient" and "all editors are then expected to help"? Does that sound like it authorizes an endless game of "fetch me a source – no, that's not a reliable source, so the burden is on you to fetch me another source – no, that's not a reliable source, so the burden is on you to fetch me a third source"?

If you think these ideas conflict, I would be happy to hear your suggestions for how we can make the goal clearer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

I have talked about the footnote, what it does not mean is everyone has to accept and not correct anyone else's erroneous belief. Not for our readers, sake. Correcting is help. And this is what flows from the bedrock principle at the top of the policy that 'Wikipedia is not based on your beliefs'. More directly, helping make the encyclopedia article better involves several different tasks, including finding agreement/explanation of what is/is not a reliable source for this contribution, and what is/is not direct support for this, and what is/is not an improving particular editing out or addition to a particular encyclopedic subject. There is not contradiction, and in no way can we say that, "the burden to demonstrate Varifiability" is not what it is, "inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

The problem being that your definitions of "reliable source" and "directly supports" might differ from mine.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

If that's a "problem", its either inherent in us both writing here or it is a matter of consensus. Presumably that's why we spend many pixels on outlining what is and is not, and in different situations, recognizing nonetheless, that the editing context always matters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

'Wikipedia is not based on your beliefs' – but perhaps you think BURDEN should be based on one editor's belief about whether a given source is reliable?

Here's what I'd like BURDEN to accomplish:

• If you wrote/want to retain something, it's your job to supply the first source.
• If your first source is accepted, then we're done with BURDEN.
• If your first source is rejected as being unreliable for that statement, then:
  1. The unreliable source can be (but is not required to be) removed from the article, which leaves the material uncited.
  2. If the unreliable source has been removed, then now-uncited material can be (but is not required to be) removed per WP:CHALLENGE; if it is removed, it's kept out of the article until an agreed-to-be-reliable source is provided by someone (←doesn't have to be you).
  3. If the material remains in the article, then everyone (←not just you) is responsible for finding a reliable source.

Does this sound like an appropriate goal to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Your first question makes no sense, since I have been talking about editors examining things together.

Your second set of points are formulaic, there are several different issues that arise in different ways on whether efforts should be expended.

At any rate, I don't think we are getting anywhere, so I'll reiterate and leave it there: The satisfaction of the burden needs be confirmed in agreement with others, that 1) the source is contextually reliable, and 2) it directly supports the contribution. (In addition to other issues). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Folks… why are we getting sidetracked by a discussion about BURDEN - when the thread is about ONUS? These two shortcuts point to different sections of the policy. Can we refocus and get back to ONUS. Blueboar (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

BURDEN is a way to sidestep ONUS. If Alan gets his way, ONUS becomes irrelevant, because all I have to do is say "Nope, that's unreliable, and I've CHALLENGED it, so out the material goes until you FETCH me another source". I don't have to be correct about it, and I don't have to care about "editors examining things together", because BURDEN is a one-on-one action: I tagged it, and either you cough up a source, or I can remove it. If that becomes "you cough up a source that I agree is reliable", then – surprise! – no source in the world will ever be reliable enough to suit me, and the BURDEN to prove verifiability remains on you forever, or at least until you drag the whole thing through every dispute resolution process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

This kind of seems like a bad-faith assumption? If someone adds unsourced information and I CHALLENGE it on the basis of BURDEN and they re-add it while citing, for instance, IMDb or a wikia, I'm well within my rights to remove it again and point to WP:IMDB or WP:SPS. But if I'm claiming without evidence that a source isn't reliable (or reliable enough), then that seems like a situation where the other editor would be well within their rights to escalate the matter via the dispute resolution processes or otherwise getting other editors involved. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

See above, many of your arguments seem to be premised on the 2nd editor (or the remover) doing stuff in bad faith or being obtuse and obstinate. The first requires admin intervention, the second requires others requesting, explanation and engagement, and if that does not work admin intervention as it at least looks like bad faith. Also, "unsourced" goes to at least three overlapping, yet important issues, V, NPOV, and NOR. At, any rate BURDEN is no less a community issue than ONUS or any other part of policy. In no way is ONUS irrelevant in my view. In my view, they must work together, one is discussing what is needed, and the other is discussing reaching consensus on that and other things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I assume good faith on the part of both hypothetical actors. That is, I believe that the first editor believes that the Wikipedia article is improved by containing _____, and the second believes that the Wikipedia article is harmed by containing _____. They are therefore both acting in ways that, to the best of their beliefs, will improve Wikipedia.

I assume that both hypothetical editors are behaving honestly: The first editor, having been requested by the second to provide one (1) source per BURDEN, has added a citation to one source that the first editor honestly, genuinely believes is reliable per WP:RSCONTEXT. The second editor honestly does not believe that this is a sufficient source for this particular statement.

We don't know why they disagree. Maybe the first editor is uninformed about our ordinary sourcing standards, or perhaps the second editor has confused unreliable with undue, or perhaps the second editor deems the material to be WP:ECREE, and is trapped by ECREE's desire for "multiple" (emphasis in the original) sources and BURDEN's "one inline citation" (emphasis added). All we know is the fact that they do disagree.

I don't think that admin intervention is needed. I think that dispute resolution is needed, and I think that dispute resolution needs to proceed under the belief that everyone needs to cooperate in solving the problem, and that this idea of "everyone" cooperating overrules the idea that only the first/including editor has any obligation to find out whether sources exist.

Here's what I want this interaction to sound like:

• Newbie: I put some content in the article!
• Me: It needs an inline citation to a reliable source.
• Newbie: Sure, I read about it on CovidBleach.com.
• Me: For this kind of content, we actually need a source that meets WP:MEDRS standards. Give me a minute while I go check PubMed and Google Books...

What do you want the interaction to sound like? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

In any given situation, it might be best to teach newbie what a reliable source is and how to find one. As the saying goes, 'teach how to fish, instead of give a fish'. Or direct them to others who can id a proper source in a particular domain. Or tell them, eg.,'that's not a proper source and I can't see how this bit matters to the article anyway, indeed where you found it and what that source says convinces me it almost certainly does not belong.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there are a wide variety of appropriate responses. In terms of BURDEN specifically, though 'I can't see how this bit matters to the article anyway, indeed where you found it and what that source says convinces me it almost certainly does not belong' means "thanks, we're done with BURDEN, and now we need to move on to DUE, which this ain't." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure it may be done, because it is unsatisfied. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Because what is unsatisfied? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Burden is either satisfied or unsatisfied. That's what we have been talking about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe this will make sense:

The specific burden on the specific individual who added/kept the material is satisfied, because the person supplied the one (1) source required they're required to supply, even if I disagree that the source is actually reliable.

The general burden on everyone to have only verifiable material in articles is not satisfied. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

So, the specific individual who is one of everyone has not satisfied the burden, either individually or as part of the collective. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The specific individual has satisfied their individual duty under BURDEN, which is to provide "any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient", even though a second editor disagrees that it's reliable. (NB that we don't know whether, in this story, the second editor is correct to disagree, nor whether the material is verifiable in a reliable source that has not yet been provided. "CovidBleach.com" sounds unreliable to me, but if the material is "Drinking bleach is unsafe and does not cure COVID-19 infections", then the material is definitely verifiable in other reliable sources.)

What you call "the collective" has not yet supplied a reliable source that the second editor will accept as reliable.

I wonder whether we need a more general, non-BURDEN-specific section on "What to do about badly sourced material" section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

It's the consensus in line with our policies and guidelines that must be satisfied that the source is reliable and directly on point. It's not the 2nd editor. The 2nd editor raises the issue. And it will never be the collective consensus supplying a source -- only one person brings it, usually the writer/proposer. The BURDEN of demonstration is on the writer/proposer and is only satisfied by providing a reliable source, on point.

If your issue is, is it best practice for the 2nd editor to supply the source (thus becoming the sponsor of the content, the taker of the burden) under certain circumstance, than, yes. But they must believe multiple things simultaneously and in no particular order: 1) the information is of the kind needing an inline source; 2) the information is verifiable (reliable and can be found on point); 3) the information belongs in the "finished" article; 4) they are qualified to identify such a source for this particular matter; 5) they have access to such a source and can supply it. And then their source and assumed proposal is open for inspection by consensus. On the other hand, if they don't have all that and all they can do is, recognize that bleach.com is unreliable for this medical info and that this is information that needs a qualified reliable source, they have done good work both for the 1st editor and the project in raising the issue.Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

In my practical editing experience (which certainly may not represent the experience of all editors), what tends to happen is):

1. Well-meaning editor adds unsourced information.
2. Unsourced information is challenged.
3. Original editor does one of the following...
   1. Adds the information with a source that seems reliable enough that it's unchallenged (or nobody notices).
   2. Adds the information with a source that's unreliable. Return to Step 2.
   3. Doesn't try to add the information again.

3-1 resolves the matter. 3-2, to my mind, may techically satisfy WP:BURDEN, but presumably leaves the original editor in violation of other P&G. 3-3 may or may not be a desirable outcome depending on the nature of the information the editor was trying to add.

This of course assumes both editors are operating in good faith. There can be tension over whether or not a source is reliable, but that's when the editors should seek a consensus (possibly via dispute resolution), and the information should be excluded from the article until a consensus favoring its inclusion has emerged.

I'll agree that in an ideal world best practice would be for the editors to collaborate to find a reliable source...but as noted, that's often not a realistic expectation, especially if the second editor doesn't especially care whether the information is added. We have no way to realistically mandate that editors work together to find sources, even if we concluded that it was a good idea to try. DonIago (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Wrt BURDEN, I'm mainly concerned about the procedural aspect, rather than the citation aspect. (I think we probably need a non-BURDEN section that says the obvious, like "you can remove stuff that failed verification" and "if it's uncited, or if the cited source is unreliable, that doesn't automatically prove that the material is unverifiable".)

Specifically about the procedural process, BURDEN must not be written or wielded as authorization for the second/challenging editor to sit on the sidelines and say "No, not good enough, try again – of course I can't help; the burden is only on you. Try again, because that one won't do, either". It is a one-time BURDEN, not an unending string of requests or a sneaky way to block a change on procedural grounds.

If anyone's curious about the history, then this footnote started with this major discussion and RFC in 2012, and was later narrowed to specify "one" source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Something like (off the top of my head) "BURDEN is satisfied once a citation has been applied in good faith. If there are questions regarding the specifics of the citation used (e.g. IMDb is cited in violation of WP:IMDb), BURDEN is not considered a valid reason to contest the edit. If editors disagree as to the appropriateness of the source being cited, they should discuss the matter at the article's Talk page and consider pursuing dispute resolution."? DonIago (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I wonder whether Alan would agree specifically to the "BURDEN is not considered a valid reason to contest the edit" line. It's my impression that he believes that an unreliable source (e.g., IMDb being wrongly cited) is still specifically a BURDEN-ALWAYS-ON-YOU-AND-NEVER-ON-ME problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

We'll see what Alan comes back with. If IMDB is cited then IMO (if it's not clear above), it's transitioned from a BURDEN problem to a WP:IMDB problem, similar to citing any other unreliable source (WP:RSP, etc.). DonIago (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Break re Catch 22 re ONUS vs NOCON

"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."

If you don't add or retore material, you don't have the burden. (You have a best practice to volunteer under certain conditions to assume (take up) the burden, set out above. And of course, you can volunteer to take on yourself anything that improves the article). And the burden begins immediately, not waiting for anyone else to show up and it is satisfied only per above. As I understand it IMBD, is a consensus of unreliability in most cases, so in most cases it does not satisfy the BURDEN (it is NOT "a reliable source that directly supports the contribution"). Editor 2 can challenge. Editor 3 can challenge. Editor 4 can challenge. As long as it is there or readded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

The question is whether there's ever a point at which offering a source stops being the duty of just one specific individual ("the editor who adds or restores material") and starts being a duty owed by the community generally.

Consider the case of IMDb: It's generally discouraged. In most cases, it is not accepted as reliable. It's also very common for newcomers to genuinely believe that it is reliable. BURDEN also has a statement about "an editor [who] has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient". BURDEN also says that "all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed" – all editors, not just the one who added or restored it.

How do you reconcile your claim that the burden is always exclusively on the one editor, with BURDEN's statement about "all editors"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

As that footnote makes clear "(e.g., why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.)", there are multiple things to work to achieve consensus on, in broad terms, work to achieve consensus on the content of the article. That's the main reason why editors exist at all, and why our content reflects consensus: editors work to achieve consensus on whether the burden has been satisfied, does the addition have one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution; they work to achieve consensus on whether the addition complies with all other policies and guidelines as suggested in that footnote and in common sense hashed out among themselves, or is it excluded. None of that does not make, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"-- it's there in bold. And as I indicated, another editor is free to advocate for that content addition and adopt the burden as their own but it's not their burden until they decide that's what they want to do, ie. they themselves want the addition or restoration, consistent with the policies and guidelines. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

So BURDEN says that "the editor" must do this, and also that "all editors" must do this. Why do you think that the former overrules the latter? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

I have explained how it goes together not "overrules", the "the" talks of burden, the "all" talks of consensus making (Although your "this" is vague, at best. Also, it's obvious with its bolding and being in the main, the first is central to the policy). The "all" certainly does not mean what you suggest, that they are to be forced into a false consensus. That's not how consensus is made or helped.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that we have a consensus, as documented in multiple discussions in the archives of this page, that say that an editor can't endlessly be forced to play a game of WP:FETCH. However, if we interpret the bold text as meaning that the burden is exclusively on that editor, and that it continues to be in force until the opponent agrees that the supplied source is reliable – No, not that one, bring me another! – then an endless game of FETCH is exactly what we'll get.

How can we clarify in the policy that once the editor has tried to provide a reliable source, the burden of making a second attempt actually isn't on that editor any longer? As in:

• You want to keep it, so you go find a source.
• I say your source isn't reliable (and I'm correct).
• The burden for finding a reliable source is not on you any longer. You did your part. Now it's up to "us" instead of "just you". "We" now have to find a reliable source, instead of "just you (again and again and again)", or come to an agreement that no such reliable source exists.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No. They don't have to endlessly fetch, they can decide not to support at any time. Surely, that's the correct thing to do in many instances. If anyone else decides they want to support, they can provide the source. Indeed, their support makes it their burden. Surely, that's the correct thing to do in many instances. All never provides the source, only one does. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

At what point in time does someone else have to help? Ever? Is this a case of "Welcome to Wikipedia. We're a collaborative project. Everyone has to work together – oh, except if you're asking for a source. That doesn't require you to lift a finger, because the burden is always on the other guy, and he has to choose between endlessly supplying sources or losing the material, and all you have to do is say 'Nope, that's not reliable either. Try again, or hold an RFC and try to make me stop rejecting all these sources'." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Of course it may be a long time, we don't require anyone to look constantly and continually over anyone's shoulder. Everyone has to work together but we don't have to support poor edits, indeed part of working together is rejecting poor edits, which benefits both other editors and the project. I sometimes think users who have trouble being edited should put up something like 'yes, I know I am being edited here' on their own page to remind themselves of what this project entails. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that everyone has to work together, but if we interpret BURDEN as being an unending game of FETCH, then we don't have everyone working together. Instead, we have one self-appointed boss ordering around someone who actually does have to look constantly and continually over his shoulder to see what excuse the lazy boss is giving for rejecting the sources this week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

You are not interpreting it correctly, to the extent anyone needs to "fetch" (which is what, just a way to denigrate burden?), it is always supporters of the content (add, keep, or readd) who have the sufficient policy and capability requirements to do so (the multi-thought process I set out above) and it is true that, that class of persons is not necessarily only one person, it is made up of all such supporters of the content. (Indeed, a consensus implies more than one). But it is always fulfilled by an individual, with others agreeing. Which also means, it is never on the unsupporters, the no longer supporters, or those who don't have the sufficient policy and capability requirements to require or determine the rs. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not a way to denigrate any of this policy. It's a way to discourage lazy stonewalling, poor communication, and edit warring by POV-pushing blankers. At some point, "No, that's not a reliable source, so I blank it again" needs to be replaced by something that is functional for resolving the dispute instead of something that is only functional if your goal is to keep The Wrong™ Information out of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

There are several ways to resolve the dispute, they are laid out in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. But once again, you assume bad faith on the second editor. You also assume that all editing occurs at once, when that's regularly not true. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

No, I assume very good faith of the second editor. I assume that the second editor genuinely, deeply, truly believes that keeping the disputed content out of Wikipedia is what's best for Wikipedia. The first sentence of AGF says "Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful", and I'm going well beyond that: I believe that the second editor believes (rightly or wrongly) that their actions are actively helping Wikipedia, especially in these three ways:

• Wikipedia is helped the most by keeping that content out of the article;
• Wikipedia is helped the most by minimizing the amount of their own time and energy spent in direct collaboration; and
• Wikipedia is helped the most by discouraging, blocking, or otherwise getting rid of any editor who would put that kind of content in this kind of article.

I believe this happens because I have been that second editor. However, I don't think that the second editor's behavior is a best practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have a skewed view of "collaboration". We are only here to collaborate on producing good content in line with policies and guidelines. We generally only write in either Wikipedia's voice or in the voice of an identified source, and we summarize reliable sources in a coherent policy compliant context. To do that collaboration, we edit and editing regularly and vitally involves also editing out. The good faith editor, who edits out is collaborating to the best of their ability. It's not best practice to support something that in their considered editorial judgement, they don't support. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Again, the problem I want to solve is not the removal of the information. The problem I want to solve is the incorrect reliance on BURDEN as a reason to revert the source and demand that the other editor go find another source.

Please go look at the desirable outcome I described above. How can we clarify BURDEN so that the removing editor stops saying "WP:FETCH me another source again" and instead says something like "Your source is unreliable, but don't waste your time looking for another, because AFAICT this doesn't belong in Wikipedia"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not a problem to solve, certainly not in content policy, your scenario either relies on the bad faith or incompetence of the the second editor, or it seeks to force editors to do something they don't support. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

No, my scenario only requires the reverting editor to be feeling very busy.

I want to change a string of "Rv unsourced per WP:BURDEN" – "Rv unreliable" – "Rv unreliable" – "Rv unreliable and I'm going to report you for edit warring because you've repeatedly tried to provide sources like I told you to" into "Rv unsourced per WP:BURDEN" and "Rv unreliable, and from my quick web search, this claim only appears in unreliable sources, so WP:ONUS applies". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Have a look at the most recent couple of edits to Neurodevelopmental disorder. The cited source has failed verification because it does not directly support the claim that NDDs (e.g., Intellectual disability and tics) are mental disorders.

Would you recommend that I just keep reverting the other editor, saying "Rv per WP:BURDEN; WP:FETCH me another source"? Is that the best practice encouraged by this policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend that you determine whether you are convinced that it is good content that belongs in the finished article. If you can't be convinced of that, there is nothing to do but edit it, up to editing it out. You as editor will like the first editor, have the BURDEN when citation is called for, only if you add or restore material that needs citation, in your editing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm the removing editor in this case: another editor wants to have the MOS:FIRST sentence say that NDDs "are mental disorders" without citing a source that directly supports that. The editor wanting to include that information merely waves at the existence of the DSM-5 and the ICD-11, neither of which say this (I've checked), nor does the presently WP:CITED source.

IMO this editor is not meeting the WP:BURDEN. Should this policy recommend that I just keep removing it and saying "WP:FETCH me another source"? Is there really "nothing to do but" edit war out the unverifiable information? Or would you recommend a different approach for me? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

If the editor came up with a source that actually did say that, would you support it being included? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

For the MOS:FIRST sentence, I think we need more than one such source, to comply with NPOV.

We actually do have one (1) reliable source that says this. I found it and posted it to the talk page myself. I also found one master's thesis, which is not MEDRS-quality. But that's apparently the end of the list. Everything else amounts to waving at sources that are known to not support the claim or at sources saying that ADHD is a mental disorder, so that "suggests" that all the non-ADHD NDDs (such as tics and cerebral palsy and intellectual disability) are mental disorders, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

So then I think your concern is not so much BURDEN as BALANCE. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Ultimately, it's WP:DUE (should a single MEDRS-quality source using a given term in its definition outweigh literally hundreds that don't?) but we actually do have a BURDEN problem here: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material", and the editor who restored that material has not produced a source. That editor has failed to meet the BURDEN. Alan says "there is nothing to do but edit it, up to editing it out" in that situation. I don't think that's either true or the best practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

So what do you think is best practice for that situation? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the best practice usually looks like this:

• For the adding/restoring editor to produce one source (ideally, at a level of detail slightly more specific than waving at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in general). Technically, that editor needs to produce "one inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", but it's the source that matters, rather than the inline formatting. If you dump a bare URL on a talk page or in an edit summary, any halfway competent editor can format it as an inline citation.
• For the removing editor(s) to look at the provided source, and either accept it or reject it.
  • If they accept it, then we're done.
  • If they reject it, then this policy imposes two requirements on them:
    1. The editors rejecting the proffered source need to explain why that source is insufficient (e.g., in this case, because the DSM does not actually contain the words that it was alleged to contain). This is in the policy: "Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia".
    2. For everyone (adders, removers, and anyone else who is standing about) to proceed through the ordinary process of developing a consensus about what to put in the article. This, too, is in the policy: "If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus". The process of achieving consensus includes, but is not limited to:
       • Starting a discussion on the talk page
       • Searching for sources
       • Checking how similar articles (if any) handle the situation
       • Suggesting alternative wording
       • Figuring out if there is any common ground
       • Seeking help from other editors (e.g., a Third opinion or asking for help at a noticeboard)
       • Forming a consensus through the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process
       • but not just insisting that since the other guy is trying to "restore" a word and I'm trying to "remove" it, that he has to do everything and all I have to do is keep reverting with "Nope, WP:FETCH me another source, because I say you've failed to meet the WP:BURDEN seventeen times in a row".

This policy also contains one relief valve for the removing editors: Once they've given the required explanation (which can usually be done with a simple link or half a sentence) and made a reasonable effort to achieve consensus (e.g., posting a Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard to say that a newbie is peddling pseudoscience again), if the adder/restorer persists, they can step back per WP:ONUS and say that it's the adder/restorer's job to overturn the consensus that formed (e.g.,) when the FTN regulars landed on the talk page like a thousand of brick, or to produce evidence of a positive consensus for their proposal when none was previously found. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Editing is one of the ways to achieve consensus, indeed, it is the usual way to achieve consensus. And explaining your edit in the editing note is standard practice. And "up to removal" makes clear that removal is not the only option when you edit.

As you are not convinced it belongs in the article, make your position known. As your position is the edit needs at least two qualified sources that show that it is accepted in the field (and presumably not have readers read disinformation of misinformation), it's just incompetent or bad faith for you to tell someone else to just produce one qualified source. You still absolutely have no BURDEN to produce any qualified reliable source for material you are not and do not support adding or restoring to the article, by the plain language of the policy. (Above, you appear to try to make a joke about the 'burden on you not on me' but the truth is the burden is only on the person who adds or restores, regardless whether it is you or me. And no one has satisfied the BURDEN ever, if no one has added the qualified source.).

And nothing I said prevents or discourages also going to the talk page, or directing the other editor to look elsewhere, for substantive and additional editors support. If there is a dispute, engaging in WP:DISPUTE RESOLUTION is the thing to do, as I have previously made clear. And I have also previously made clear over and over, you are free to volunteer to satisfy the BURDEN -- if you are going to volunteer because you think it belongs in the finished article, just edit the article, and add the qualified source(s). There it is, "editing", again, for consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying that BURDEN doesn't prohibit me from choosing a path that's different from edit-warring out the uncited content.

But I think the community's best practice goes a little beyond "Well, BURDEN doesn't say removal is mandatory".

I've got a scenario in which the other editor either believes that waving at a source that failed verification is sufficient.

1. Does BURDEN permit me to remove the content after the adding/restoring editor has named a source that I've deemed insufficient? Can I claim the BURDEN is still on the other guy, since I believe the supplied source doesn't "directly support" the content, or that it's not "reliable"? (What if I'm wrong, and it does directly support the content, and it actually is a reliable source?)
2. In your opinion, how many times do I get to remove the unsupported content before the BURDEN being on the other guy stops applying? Once? Three times each 24 hours? Seven times seventy?
3. Are there any limits articulated in BURDEN itself to me reverting this incorrect and poorly sourced word? (I'm asking about this being in BURDEN, because that's where a reverting editor is looking for a policy that justifies repeated reverting.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Second thought: "Editing is one of the ways to achieve consensus". But is there any place in this policy does it say that I have to do that? Remember, I'm the removing editor. BURDEN's on my side, and so is ONUS. Achieving consensus is the other guy's job, and AFAICT you don't want either of them to put any limits on my ability to remove the disputed content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Policy does not generally give you a choice to edit war except perhaps in service of BLP (or a lenient administrator).

You should decide whether you support the content, but if you don't add or restore, you don't have the Burden. Only the adder or restorer has the Burden. Policy can't make anyone fulfill the Burden, it can but assign it. Similarly, it can't make anyone take-up the ONUS, it can but assign it. Its best practice to support good content and oppose bad content. You'll get plaudits for supporting good content and opposing mistake, misinformation or worse. Policy should support the good editing.

Policy can't make you edit, but if you decide to edit content, including removal, explain, usually in your edit summary. If you are asked to explain further, explain. If you think they got it or the misunderstanding can be ameliorated, edit again up to removal but I don't recommend edit warring. If the cycle of removal threatens to continue, go to more formal dispute resolution (and yes disputes cover content (such as the things in NOTE C) and conduct).

If you support the content, it at least behooves you to make sure it is no longer under threat of possible removal, but again you can't be forced to do any editing by policy. Also, unless you're editing in bad faith or incompetently, you should not generally remove content that you agree improves the article (by your own analysis, you are making the article worse).

It remains, the Burden lies where it lies per its terms, and the Onus lies where it lies, per its terms. And for good reason, the burden of persuasion is on the side that's: 'yes, let us tell the world this.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Where in BURDEN does it say this? What words in BURDEN would give me, the remover, some idea that my policy-given right to remove content that (a) contains a citation, but (b) I personally, with no evidence of consensus behind me, have deemed that citation to be insufficient doesn't extend to repeated removal?

Where in BURDEN is there any suggestion that maybe, after someone has WP:CITED the material, just maybe we should move on from "Ha ha, BURDEN says I get to revert you, because I say that's not reliable, and BURDEN says you have to FETCH me a 'reliable' source" to some more sophisticated form of editing the article (e.g., to ordinary Wikipedia:Consensus work)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

We are not going to write the whole of policy in Burden. We are not going to list endlessly all the possible permutations of what may happen. See, KISS. Once again, you betray yourself, "Ha, Ha", really you should get away from trying to have content policy assume editors are in bad faith or incompetent Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2026 (UTC).

We are not going to write the whole of Wikipedia's ruleset in BURDEN. But perhaps we could put the footnote, which says:

Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; undue emphasis; unencyclopedic content; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus, and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.

in the main text, in the hope that a somewhat larger number of editors would notice that this policy says (and has for many years) that the next goal is explanations and finding consensus, rather than repeating the first step of BURDEN in a loop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

No. That's no, "next goal". Consensus on content is the goal from the start. So much so, that once an article has content provided by any good faith editor, it is presumed to have consensus until edited again. And policy lays out what consensus on content should look like, it should be NPOV, V, NOR, non-CVIO and BLP compliant content. There are many statements on Wikipedia that should have a qualified cite, that don't. Does that mean they are not verifiable, and in conformance with the other policies? No, not necessarily, it means no one has edited to do that. The BURDEN remains where it is, always has been, and always will be, with the adder or restorer of the content. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess I should add, that I don't know if I have ever said BURDEN to anyone in an editing dispute, I have said something like 'that's not a reliable source' and 'I don't support that addition', etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Blueboar, we are discussing the interplay of two sections of the policy, that they are both part of policy means they must work together and both apply. If it will help, add "See ONUS." to the end of the comment you responded to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I only tend to invoke BURDEN when editors get mouthy at me after I've deleted their unsourced addition (e.g. "If that's such a problem for you then you add a source, leave me the fuck alone!"). DonIago (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Iteration 2 re Catch 22 re ONUS vs NOCON

• One of the things ONUS does is give a process for dealing with a fact or claim that's verifiable, but in the wrong place.
• Only use ONUS when you give a reason for your change. ONUS is not a reason---it's a process.
• ONUS enables editors to move any fact or claim, including a fact or claim that's meticulously cited, to the article that's most appropriate for it.
• If there's no appropriate article, options are to start one, or to delete the disputed fact or claim.
• Because ONUS involves moving material that's properly cited, WP:V is a natural place where editors would tend to look for the rule.
• It interacts with WP:PRESERVE to mean that if the fact or claim belongs anywhere in the encyclopaedia, it must be moved rather than deleted.
• It interacts with WP:UNDUE to mean that if there's dispute about where to put the fact or claim, we tend to put it in the less prominent place. This can be good or bad.
• It's important for dealing with marketers and people with an agenda, who often won't want you to move their well-cited fact or claim to a place that gives it less prominence. ONUS is helpful in that situation.
• It's also useful for those who want to whitewash an article. This can lead to misuse.
• Longstanding versions of the article don't necessarily have consensus---particularly for low-traffic articles. The best way to tell whether a fact or claim has consensus is if it's been specifically discussed on the talk page. It likely also has consensus if it's been substantially edited by a number of different editors over a reasonable period of time without challenge. (Examples of edits that aren't "substantial" include minor MOS-related edits, categorization, autowikibrowser, and typo fixes).
• Where there's an apparent conflict between WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON, WP:NOCON only prevails where there's good evidence that the fact or claim has consensus. Otherwise WP:ONUS prevails.

This essay needs a title. It's about "How ONUS interacts with other policies and guidelines" but that's too long. Suggestions?—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe try something along these lines:

• Wikipedia:What is consensus?
• Wikipedia:What "no consensus" means
• Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means
• Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" really means
• Wikipedia:What does "per" mean?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikipedia:What WP:ONUS means, then?—S Marshall T/C 21:52, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:What ONUS means. The "WP:" bit looks odd to me (but your choice). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

It's up. Further thoughts welcome.—S Marshall T/C 14:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

IMO both from the original entry and the acceptance of it and the explanation, and the fact that it is in the verifiability policy IMO the original intent of Onus was to prevent using verifiability of something to force into it into an article. IMO then the usage drifted off course. To randomly put a finger on the scale toward exclusion of content. It conflicts with the wp:consensus policy, tampers with the decision processes under that policy. IMO the best thing to do would be to reword it to follow its IMO original intent. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

All quotations or "direct quotations"

WP:V had "all quotations" but in 2024 WhatamIdoing changed to "direct quotations" in this edit. The edit summary says "per talk" but I don't see in the talk around that time (archives 79-81) a thread saying that was consensus. Does everybody agree that everybody agreed? I think it's bad, if I claim that WP:V's This page in a nutshell says quotations, that's substantially a claim that WP:V's "This page in a nutshell" says "quotations". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you give an example of "a quotation" that is not "a direct quotation" that you think requires an inline citation exclusively because it's a quotation (and which would not require an inline citation if it were not a quotation)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you tell me where the thread is? If it's already been discussed and agreed as you claimed, then there's no need for argument here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

The edit summary says "Listing the four types per talk page", and the edit is much bigger than just adding the word "direct". I therefore assume that the discussion is not specifically or exclusively about whether to add the word direct.

I suggest that instead of seeking a past discussion, we instead discuss whether it's what we want now. Therefore: Can you think of a situation in which changing "quotations" to (the IMO clearer) "direct quotations" would exclude anything that you want to include? If not, then the change is harmless. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters either way, but since you ask :). This is the example from our quotations article: He said: 'I am leaving now' (direct) versus 'He said (that) he was leaving immediately' (indirect). So why cite only the first and not the second? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

If you can't back up your claim that your policy change was per talk, then I don't see why you act as if the onus is on me. But, as Churchill said, "we will never surrender". I trust we accept that a direct quotation is exact word-for-word, verbatim, and thefore inside quotes. Thus this doesn't apply to paraphrasing. Here's an example then, from Durham special counsel report: Law professor Jonathan Turley[148] and Republican senator Marsha Blackburn asserted the Russian collusion theory was a hoax invented by Clinton and her operatives. Neither quite said that, but since nothing's in quotes there's no need for a directly-supporting cite (And no, [148] doesn't quite say they did.) Sure, that's objectionable for other reasons, but it was formerly a violation of this part of WP:V because it was an indirect quotation, but due to your change it's not. Now, I'm throwing this open to the audience. If you ddon't have consensus, and if nobody else recalls that this was agreed when you said it was, that's enough to erase your bad change. (By the way, my quote of Churchill shouldn't have been direct, I wonder if everyone will catch that.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Isn't that the kind of content that would currently be required to have a citation due to being Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged if it were left uncited? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

That's no answer. I'll come back in a week and see who supports what. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I think, what we need is the case for excluding indirect quotations from the cite requirement. I can't see any reason to do that. So can someone explain, why? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Because it's either unnecessary to have a citation at all, or it's redundant with WP:LIKELY. We want direct quotations to be cited so we have a way to show that the exact words are correct. But an indirect quotation doesn't necessarily use the exact wording.

"Lao Tzu said that the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step" contains an indirect quotation. "Polonius' advice to his son about personal finance, especially his exhortation to neither a borrower nor a lender be, is famous" also does. Ditto for "Richard Nixon said that he was not a crook".

Do we need an inline citation in such cases for the quotation (i.e., because we want to be able to show that the exact words are correct), or do we mainly need an inline citation for some other, non-exact-wording reason (e.g., to show that these things were said by Lao Tzu/Polonius/Nixon instead of some other person or character)? I think it's the latter, and that's why I think that indirect quotations should be handled under LIKELY instead of as quotations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

So are indirect quotes without citation a form of plagiarism? You are too close paraphrasing? Or for either quotation types, we are literally or substantively putting words/ideas in someone else's mouth. And what we want to do with citation of either type is show we are representing the other person/people correctly (he, she, they said.) They literally or substantively said that -- you reader, have the proof in the citation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I would agree that both direct quotations and paraphrases (indirect quotation) require a citation. We are just nit-picking over why the citation is required. Blueboar (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes. But I asked for the "why" we went from all quotes to only direct quotes because I did not understand why it was done. Why we would we exclude indirect quotes. Now that a "why" argument has been presented. I find it unpersuasive. And I agree we need cites for both direct and indirect, all quotes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not plagiarism, because the information has WP:INTEXT attribution.

Attributing ideas to someone falls under WP:LIKELY. If you say "I saw Karp in the elevator, and he said it was probably np-complete", then that requires an inline citation because of the substance, regardless of whether Karp's actual words were "That's probably np-complete" (in which case, it's a fully attributed, non-plagiarized indirect quotation) or if you ask him "Do you think this is probably np-complete?" and he replied "Yeah, intuitively I think so, but intuition isn't a proof" (which is fully attributed and non-plagiarized, but not a quotation of any kind). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I knew you were going to say intext. So, we need a citation to show we have done that correctly. And if something is not a quote at all, it's not covered, by "quotations". Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Imagine this scenario:

• The words that Karp actually said: "Yeah, intuitively I think so, but intuition isn't a proof".
• What the reliable source said: "I saw Karp in the elevator, and he said it was probably np-complete".
• What the Wikipedia article says: "In 2022, Karp said that it was probably np-complete".

My questions for you:

1. Is this required to have an inline citation because it is a quotation (as opposed to being required for some other reason, such as LIKELY)?
2. How would an editor who hasn't seen the source be able to tell if it's a quotation?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I would have put in something like, 'According to X, Karp said, . . . (and yes, with cite). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You did not answer my questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought I did answer the questions, I would change the article to conform to source and I would cite my change as it is a quote.

But let me add, where I think now, you appear to have some rigid thinking: there is no reason to want to, or think, each of the four reasons to cite are always going to be mutually exclusive of each other in every circumstance. You only need one reason, but if you have say, 2 reasons for putting in the cite, that's fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that overlapping reasons happen (e.g., a surprising or dubious quotation about a BLP is at least three of them).

You have not answered my question about whether "In 2022, Karp said that it was probably np-complete" constitutes a quotation. You have said that a different sentence does, but you have not said whether this sentence constitutes a quotation.

This matters, because if "In 2022, Karp said that it was probably np-complete" is an actual, bona fide quotation, then so is "The studio announced plans to release the film on DVD" and "A 2022 review found that cancer rates were rising", and I think that if we tell editors that when we Wikipedia:Use our own words to report facts, we're actually quoting sources, they will be very confused. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Any time, you in substance say someone said, it is presented as a quotation. In this case, an indirect quotation. I would oppose your proposed quotation of Karp because it is not accurate to the source. From the source we only know what X thinks Karp said, so it should be presented in substance as, X said [that] Karp said.

Can editors be confused about too close paraphrasing, yes, but that goes beyond quotations, and it is analyzed under the rules of plagiarism, which have some give for common expressions. The indirect quotation (He, she, they said), like "the direct quotation", obviates any concern of plagiarism because you are not presenting them as your thoughts, you are fully presenting them as someone else's. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree.

First, we don't take a reliable source and say "Oh, well, that's only what the journalist thought the person said. I mean, Jo Journalist asked the CEO whether it was true, and the CEO said 'Yes', but maybe they misheard, and the CEO actually recited a poem or something." If it's a reliable source, we have to accept what the source said. And if the source said "I saw Karp in the elevator, and he said it was probably np-complete", then "Karp said that it was probably np-complete" is what we should be writing. We should not be writing "Jo Journalist thinks that Karp said that it was probably np-complete". WP:INTEXT warns against the "ways in-text attribution can mislead", and claiming that it's only what the author "said" that Karp said is a way of casting doubt on whether Karp said it. This is not, and IMO should not be, our standard. Imagine if someone tried that with a politician who suffers from chronic foot-in-mouth disease.

Second, I wonder if you are interpreting quotation as encompassing any type of attribution. Quotation is about using the same words (e.g., "When asked whether it was np-complete, Karp said 'Yeah, intuitively I think so'."). Attribution is saying where the facts came from (e.g., "Jo Journalist said that Karp once claimed that it was probably np-complete"). These are different things, but IMO this policy should require both of them to have an inline citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I am certain you are wrong. (It's your proposed edit that decided it's important that Karp said it). So, we can stop now. We have both had our say. The edit in question, you made to this policy has been undone and that's rather all that matters now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've delayed reverting but observe that nobody has explicitly supported WhatamIdoing's policy change or remembered supporting it before.

Re Lao Tzu and Polonius and Richard Nixon: the Laozi article doesn't have the quote (which is okay since it's disputed that he wrote the Tao Te Ching and that that translation of 千里之行始于足下 is right), the Polonius and Richard Nixon articles contain direct quotations (in the latter it's "Well, I'm not a crook"), so WhatamIdoing's examples, unlike mine, aren't easily shown to represent something real in Wikipedia.

Re WP:LIKELY: the problem is WhatamIdoing rewrote a policy to say "direct quoation" and her solution is to instead use an essay which she wrote to say "direct quotation", I said that's not an answer and don't see why anyone else would think it is.

There are 3 guidelines which say that this bit of WP:V says "all quotations" (emphasis mine)

WP:RS "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for ALL QUOTATIONS."

WP:CITE "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for ALL QUOTATIONS, anywhere in article space."

MOS:LEAD "The verifiability policy states that ALL QUOTATIONS, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it."

... those guidelines are now false due to WhatamIdoing's change.

There is one policy which says "all auotations" (emphasis mine)

WP:BLP says "ALL QUOTATIONS and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source."

... this policy maybe now contradicts WP:V due to WhatamIdoing's change, as it doesn't clearly say that it only appplies to quotations inside BLP articles.

Alanscottwalker, Blueboar: are you supporting or opposing or neutral about WhatamiDoing's change?

Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I oppose WAID's change, we don't need arguments about whether a quote is direct or indirect. Will that leave arguments about whether something is a quote at all? Perhaps, but then WAID says it falls under likely, if you are having that argument. Either way, let's get rid of the direct or indirect arguments and just go back to all quotes. Blueboar also says "I would agree that both direct quotations and paraphrases (indirect quotation) require a citation." Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It does seem pointlessly complicated to impose different expectations on different quotes. CMD (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarity. I changed with edit summary = Undid Revision as of 16:57, 21 May 2024 by WhatamIdoing. See talk page = All quotations or "direct quotations". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Peter, do you think you could reinstate all the other changes, instead of reverting everything in that diff? It'd have been very easy to take out the one word "direct" if you wanted to have the original word, or even to put in the new word "all" if you wanted to emphasize it. You did not need to revert everything, including formatting changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I was not talking about any other change than that one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The word "all" is not new. I was thinking that the paraphrasing in the guidelines becomes confusing if the WP:V statement isn't exactly what it was before, so I didn't reinstate. Certainly if there is consens that the formatting changes improve, I'll not think it's a big deal. The non-formatting matters caused by a full revert, I think, were: elimination of a wikilink to WP:CHALLENGE, removal of a mention of your WP:LIKELY essay, different emphasis about WP:BLP. So let's put it this way: should the revert have been of all the changes (my preference), or only a change to "all" rather than "direct" (perhaps your preference and perhaps Alanscottwalker's preference)? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I very strongly believe that the lead of this policy should say that "contentious material about living people" is required to have an inline citation. It no longer says that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It says "Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced." I noted that's a different emphasis about BLP. You strongly want to say "lacks an inline citation" instead, or as well? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a true statement, to the extent that "different" means "less". WP:V should have a positive statement that says such an inline citation is required.

This policy currently says many things about BLPs:

• Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.
• Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy (common shortcut: WP:BLP). The latter policy also applies to some groups.
• Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine.
• Never use a self-published source as a third-party source about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.
• Editors should not rely upon machine translations of non-English sources in contentious articles or biographies of living people.
• Take special care with contentious material about living and recently deceased people.

but nowhere does it give the basic instruction that contentious matter about BLPs requires an inline citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

About "the paraphrasing in the guidelines becomes confusing if the WP:V statement isn't exactly what it was before": WP:RS also says "In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority". In other words, if the difference between WP:V and WP:RS bothered you, you should have changed WP:RS to match WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You caused a difference, I removed it, you're (if I understand you) thinking it should go back in and then I should change the guidelines to match your preference. Well, that's one of the reasons I'd prefer to keep your changes reverted. I think the sole question at this stage should be, as I suggested earlier: should the revert have been of all the changes or only a change to "all" rather than "direct". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a wikilink to direct quotation, as in the version of WP:V that existed before this discussion, will be ignored by many readers, because "Quotation" is merely a Wikipedia article and carries no authority. If we look at The Chicago Manual of Style 18th ed, § 12.1 to 12.5, we see it discussing quotations and paraphrases. Direct quotations are only mentioned in passing, and not distinguished from quotations. So I think saying "all quotations" in the policy will not reliably communicate to readers that paraphrases are a form of quotation, and will not put readers on notice that paraphrases need inline citations.

Chicago § 12.3 states "Whether quoting, paraphrasing, or using other's words or ideas to advance their own arguments, authors should give explicit credit to the source of those words or ideas." This does not say that the credit must take the form of an inline citation. I don't think it's clear that Wikipedia requires an inline citation for a paraphrase, although some form of credit is required. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Back to square one, eh? You support WhatamIdoing's change? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I support making a bullet list. I don't support the phrase "direct quotation". After writing my comment, I noticed this in the "Copyright and plagiarism" section:

Do not plagiarize or breach copyright when using sources. Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.

So I suggest changing "direct quotation" to "quotation or close paraphrase". Jc3s5h (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You're not talking about the matter that the thread started with i.e. WhatamIdoing's policy change, or the thing that we were ending with i.e. whether I reverted too much. I'm not merely against the suggestion, I'm against talking about it here. Why not let this thread end, then you can start a new one, which I predict will fail?

I'm switching to non-reply mode for a week. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

If we can't agree on what counts as a quotation, how will editors know what we want cited?

@Jc3s5h, I'd like you to look at the example I outline above. Is that either a "quotation or close paraphrase" in your opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I would call the hypothetical Wikipedia passage a close paraphrase of the reliable source. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

But not, I assume, a close paraphrase of Karp. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a close paraphrase of X who paraphrased Karp. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

It might be a close paraphrase of the reliable source (though it wouldn't violate our Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing rules), but it's not a close paraphrase of Karp, so it's not a quotation of Karp. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, WhatamIdoing, that the hypothetical Wikipedia passage would not be a close paraphrase of Karp. It would be a paraphrase or summary. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

WAID said its not a paraphrase of Karp, I said it was; although I am more than willing to move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I would not add "too close paraphrasing" there. In a proper indirect quotation, too close paraphrasing is fine because you tell the reader that is what you are trying to do. Too close paraphrasing is not always otherwise, fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's my proposal:

Current:

Each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

Proposed:

Each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material:

• quotations and any claim requiring in-text attribution,
• material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Please immediately remove contentious material about living people (or existing groups) that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

----

The main substantive change is that we'd be adding an explicit requirement to cite sentences such as "According to a 2022 article, blue-green widgets were preferred for this use". What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The substantive change relevant to this thread is replacing the sentence mentioning all quotations, I have explained why I am against this, I have understood that others are against. However, I should explain a detail: Dustfreeworld added the words "(or existing groups)" on 29 May 2024 i.e. after your "per talk" change, so when I manually reverted your change I removed "(or existing groups)" too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

If your only objection was a single word (i.e., changing "all quotations" → "direct quotations"), then it would have been more appropriate for you to change a single word. But you chose to make revert many words, nearly all of which were unrelated to "all" vs "direct". You can either self-revert the changes that you consider to be not "The substantive change relevant to this thread", or we can talk about all the changes you reverted instead of just that one word in this thread.

More importantly, when you raised your concern about "all" vs "direct", the discussion in this thread made me realize that the policy doesn't clearly state that inline citations are required for statements that need in-text attribution, and in practice, the community does actually want to see such statements cited. If you don't care about that, you are not required to express an opinion on that point. But other people might, and since the idea arose in this thread, it should be discussed in this thread. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

We've been through this already at length, it is false that my "only objection was a single word" and it would not have been appropriate for me to change "direct" to all". We can all see how you framed that alternative -- you said I would be adding my word and it would be a new word. In other words it wouldn't be reverting your change, it would be me that's making a bold policy change, and you wouldn't need consensus to go back to your preference. On top of that, according to you, I'd be the one responsible for fixing the guidelines that had been falsified by your change! I oppose putting your policy change back in. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay. We all agree that all of this should be discussed together, then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to your change, but I would like to see if anyone else has views on "any claim requiring in-text attribution". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2026 (UTC) Perhaps @S Marshall: has thoughts? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, "existing groups" seems too broad, 'small identifiable groups [of living people]' is more like it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Good point. How about "contentious material about living people (or existing groups)" → "contentious material about living people (including small, identifiable groups)"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I fear that trying to take a bit of what's in WP:BLP about groups, without linking to the bit about groups, could cause confusion because it's inexact. There is a sufficient statement in section "Responsibility for providing citations". It used to say "The biographies of living persons policy also applies to some groups." until 20 February 2026 when Altenmann changed to "The latter policy also applies to some groups." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Your quote is wrong. My edit removed an "easter egg" from the text [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|living people]]. It is a poor style in articles and even worse in the policies: "living people" is a rather mundane term and one would hardly expect a policy under it (of course, one may click it only out of wonder "why would anyone want to link it?"). --Altenmann >talk 15:41, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

You're looking at the sentence that precedes the one that I (correctly) quote. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

You were quoting out of context. Without the preceding sentence the second one looks unclear ("What is "the latter"?). And I am explaining the reasons for what exactly I changed. --Altenmann >talk 18:02, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

The context is a suggestion to change the lead, including a re-insertion of Dustfreeworld's addition, but changing it to "contentious material about living people (including small, identifiable groups)". You can object about an Easter egg, I can object about redundancy, but mainly: I think proposals about new wording should be a new thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker ~2026-41111-99 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

You called me? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Notes

Please stop adding words to the policy

This policy is already too long for some editor's attention spans. Please stop adding more words to it.

If you feel more words are needed in a particular place because you feel the policy is unclear, please put on this talk page some examples of where the unclarity is causing problems in practice.—S Marshall T/C 11:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Context: my edit pointing out an apparent contradiction with WP:EPCR, was reverted.

My response: I don't want, at this point, to provide details or persons involved in problems, because I sufficiently justified my edit the way I did in the summary, which you seem to have not noticed, i.e. I was basically pointing at the fact that the wording breaches the policy of non-contradiction.

There is no automatic rule that edits should be reverted if they add words to the policy. Since you only justified your revert with 'words count', you have still not followed the guideline of addressing the editor's concerns.

My edit could actually do with fewer words than the original, if I didn't try to preserve all of the instructions, i.e. the verbose mentioning that attribution applies not only when when quoting, but also when close paraphrasing (I think it can be dropped).

Do you not feel that, when close paraphrasing is first mentioned in a paragraph titled "Copyright", we should explain that it can also be a breach of copyright, to avoid the danger of reader understanding this in contradiction to WP:EPCR? (If you recognize the need, you're welcome to propose a better wording.) Zlamma (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

More context: When I added close paraphrasing to this policy, I did so in response to clear need. I put it in in December 2010. I did so because in November 2010, an editor called Rlevse—who was very senior and widely respected, and his advanced permissions included arbitrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and oversight—had just quit because he'd failed to understand WP:V, and a quite breathtaking amount of content that he'd added to Wikipedia was plagiarized or copyvio. Those interested in the history can read his parting statement here.

I am and have always been deeply concerned about copyright and plagiarism as it applies to Wikipedia.

Note that my addition was reverted half an hour later with the edit summary "rv, needless overinstruction". I put it back in, got reverted again, and ended up in yet another extended tussle with SlimVirgin, who hated people changing her policies. Welcome to the happy world of editing policy pages.

But close paraphrasing rightly has its own policy page. We should link it here, but we shouldn't try to write it here. Keep this policy short.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I too deeply care for brevity and I put a lot of effort to achieve it (and never fixate on my wording but solicit it from other users).

Like I said, this could be handled with even less words than the original.

My goal is not overinstruction, but rather: when the text is already providing an instruction, it should be the more important instruction, not the less important. It's somewhat in the spirit of WP:DUEWEIGHT, but applying to policy wording.

Especially in the section titled "Copyright" it's unwise to introduce "close paraphrasing" to the reader in the permissive sense, and not even tell them it can be a copyright infringement. Zlamma (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Question: why is WP:V discussing the issue of close paraphrasing in the first place? I understand and agree that close paraphrasing is a problem, and we should warn editors to avoid it… but is WP:V the right venue for that warning?

Our policies and guidelines need to stay “on topic”… and I am not sure how close paraphrasing relates to the topic of “Verifiability”. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Blueboar, could you just confirm that you've re-read Rlevse's parting statement and you still don't follow this? WP:V is the requirement to cite your sources. If someone of your experience can't see the relationship between close paraphrasing and citing your sources, then yes, we probably do need to add more text.—S Marshall T/C 13:26, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I have re-read it… and I think what happened to Rlevse is (today) covered by VNOT.

His/Her text was verifiable, but that didn’t guarantee that it was acceptable - because it failed other policies and guidelines (in his/her case, the text bumped up against copyright and plagiarism).

The entire point of VNOT is to warn editors that Verifiability is not the only policy/guideline that relates to inclusion. That is a useful statement. However, having made that statement, we don’t need to spell out which other policies relate to inclusion, as doing so takes us “off topic”. Blueboar (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

OK. I do think we need a specific mention of WP:CLOP in this policy because when we didn't back in 2010, we had substantial real-world problems with senior editors not understanding the requirement. I wouldn't object to moving the WP:CLOP mention to a much better written version of WP:VNOT. (Currently the writing is unutterably horrible: fussily verbose in its first idea and no more than the vaguest whiff of allusion in its second.)—S Marshall T/C 16:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I suppose my thinking was that the entire “Verifiability and other principles” section should be folded into VNOT… and shortened substantially. But I won’t press it. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I actually agree that WP:CLOP is relevant to WP:V, it's just that WP:V currently fails to explain why, and instead became a place for duplicating Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Copyright and Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Avoiding plagiarism. The way that copyright connects to WP:CLOP is that some users who only know WP:V but don't know any of the two rules that stipulate to use "own words", resort to patchwriting to match sentences of the source exactly, and even revert any attempts at fixing the resulting quality problems, claiming using own words are a WP:V violation (this is precisely why I came here).

If we want to slim WP:V down, replace the verbose and misplaced 'when you are violating copyright' warnings with a link to Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Copyright or Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Avoiding plagiarism under the call not to always use the same language as the source, followed by a reminder to editors defending compliance with WP:V that they musn't expect to find same words in the source. Zlamma (talk) 17:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe WP:V a "the requirement to cite your sources". WP:V is first "the requirement that it be possible to cite reliable sources" ("yours" or otherwise), plus a requirement that this possibility be turned into action in the four specified cases (one of which was actually imposed by BLP, not by WP:V, and only copied here recently). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

@S Marshall perhaps my latest edit, proposing a compromise is fitting. It uses the same amount of words. Zlamma (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I reverted this change because it changes the meaning in an incorrect way. Before, whether or not to quote was guided by the phrase "summarize source material in you own words as much as possible" and the new version adds the words, in another part of the sentence, "is appropriate" which is redundant. The old version had

use an inline citation, and in-text attribution where appropriate.

This acknowledges that in-text attribution is not always required, for example, if the quote is just an apt way of stating a position that is almost universally accepted in the field.

The new version states

use an inline citation, and in-text attribution.

which means an in-text attribution is required for every quote, which is not the policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I admit that I thought there's a change of meaning, but I thought it benign because the location of 'where appropriate' could have meant it applies to both. I propose this way of avoiding that ambiguity Zlamma (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Zlamma, please don't propose changes to core policies on policy pages. Work them out on talk, get consensus, and then edit the policy. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies, and this is just trying to shorten the exchange, and very much an exception to my practice. Zlamma (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Minimal change - linkify

The thread might have become a bit confusing (I 'm sorry for also adding to that), so let me try to focus by trying to make minimal progress first:

Re: @S Marshall:'s opinion that ...close paraphrasing rightly has its own policy page. We should link it here...

Currently the text is there without the link. I too think that at least linking is necessary. Many users only know WP:V and I'd wager they wouldn't guess that 'close paraphrasing' is even a very specific concept (I myself didn't realize it), so it fits the reasons to link. It's also the first time 'close paraphrasing' is mentioned on WP:V, fitting the other rule.

So, setting aside the discussion whether 'close paraphrasing' should be mentioned - the timeline of that contention is unknown:

While 'close paraphrising' is present in the text, do we want to linkify its first occurrence?
Zlamma (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• The first or one of the early ones, yes.—S Marshall T/C 15:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes; making it known that the page exists should be helpful for newer editors. As a new editor myself, while I somewhat knew of the concept as it relates to Wikipedia, I don't recall whether I even knew of the page, or if I've viewed it before. Squitor!!! (say hi, i won't bite) 21:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks both. Done now.

Re The first or one of the early ones, yes

Just to clarify: there is only one occurrence. I guess I was just trying to emphasize the importance of linking by calling it 'the first'. Zlamma (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Continued: Addressing the concern raised - first mention of 'close paraphrasing' should warn it's plagiarism

So we made the minimal progress, and now have a linkified close paraphrasing, to give:

Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation and, where appropriate, an in-text attribution.

Concern still holds: Now, I want to get wider feedback on my concern which IMO still holds, and it's that the above text is inconsistent with WP:EPCR's

"avoid copying or closely paraphrasing a copyrighted source"

and the WP:V's version runs into a danger of educating a policy contradiction.

Justification: In a section titled "§ Copyright and plagiarism" it's unwise to introduce close paraphrasing to the reader in a permissive clause, and not even tell them doing it may be plagiarism. Compared to this fact, the currently present permissive clause is a secondary detail.

Proposals - close paraphrasing

Wordings that address the concern include (other suggestions welcome):

1. Add one word "justifiably" and link more precisely to educate when exactly to use 'close paraphrasing' (while "justifiably" educates that it normally shouldn't be used):

   Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or justifiably closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation and, where appropriate, an in-text attribution.

   1. Or achieve less words by dropping "a source":

      Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or justifiably closely paraphrasing a source, use an inline citation and, where appropriate, an in-text attribution.

2. Closely match WP:EPCR's version, minimizing words:

   Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quoting or closely paraphrasing a source, avoiding close paraphrasing; when unavoidable or when quoting, use an inline citation and, where appropriate, an in-text attribution.

3. Just hint that close paraphrasing should only be used when needed (no extra links):

Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible; when quote or closely paraphrase a source only when needed, and when doing so use an inline citation and, where appropriate, an in-text attribution.

Feedback is most welcome. Zlamma (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• I'd go with a tweaked #2:

Summarize source material in your own words. Avoid close paraphrasing. When you can't avoid close paraphrasing, or when quoting, use an inline citation and consider in-text attribution.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is also good. There seems to be no other ideas, so applied it now.

Thank you all. Zlamma (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I generally support this clarification. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF and interviews

So, maybe stating the obvious, but interviews should be treated roughly with the same parameters as ABOUTSELF regarding using them as sources of data (as opposed to just what's been said), right? Like, obviously certain journalists double check interviews after they've been done and either edit down claims which are either found to be false, improbable, or possibly libelous/defamatory, but still a good chunk of them just let their interviewee talk as they wish, with any edits being made principally for clarity. As such, a non-controversial claim regarding themselves could be used, but any claim regarding third parties should be treated with a grain of salt (eg. Joe McExample claiming they were influenced by Julia Bigshotquin is okay, but we could not take McExample's anecdote about Bigshotquin telling him he's the best living director as anything more than that). José Trinidad Mirreyes (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that your analysis is valid but, for the reason you describe and others, it's not the same as aboutself. Sincerely, North8000 (talk)

José Trinidad Mirreyes, it depends on the interview. See Wikipedia:Interviews. In particular, keep in mind the difference between "Joe Film is interviewed about himself and his latest film" and "Prof. I.M. Portant is interviewed about the area of his scholarly expertise". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I probably should have specified (thought about editing but ended up being AFK) this would not apply to experts (within the regular bounds of their field, we've known more than a few experts end up in WP:FRINGE in their latter years) and (within reason) those speaking as official representatives of a given entity (okay, these cases get thornier given the documented tendency of more than a few major entities to use interviews for spin purposes, but they definitely have greater weight than if interviewed as individuals). That essay is a generally good guideline. José Trinidad Mirreyes (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that you are showing sound reasoning about the actual reliability / suitability of the source in the context of the text that is using it as the source. But again, that is different than saying that the aboutself restrictions should apply. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Add "This policy is non-negotiable" to WP:V for parity with equal importance WP:NPOV

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says:

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

We should simply add that same text here to the lede. That is all. Any content in the enclycodpia must comply with both without exemption so there is no valid reason to omit it surely. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. WP:CGTW#8 – This seems like a weird roundabout way to weaken Wikipedia's requirement for the primacy of NPOV following on from discussions at WP:FT/N. In general a WP:POLICY is a "standard all users should normally follow" not a hard-and-fast rule, which is why WP:IAR exists for exceptional cases. If this proposal is actually an attempt to fix a real problem then could we have some actual examples of the problem that would be fixed, with some before/after examples of how this change would apply in practice? In reality, WP:V is one of the more flexible policies because sometimes a nominally unreliable source is used for knowledge when it is deemed that knowledge is in fact accepted in the wider world and important to convey; making this policy non-negotiable would hamper the Project in such cases. Bon courage (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree. Well put. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  How does WP:V being compulsory at all times like NPOV weaken NPOV? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV does not have primacy over WP:V, and the idea that it does is absurd and would destroy our ability to operate as an encyclopedia by allowing people to substitute a bare assertion that something is "more neutral" for sourcing. Even the current wording of NPOV incorporates V by explicitly saying that NPOV can only be applied in light of WP:V; this gives V the same level of force NPOV has. --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose in a non-negotiable manner, per Bon Courage. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Tentative support. Contrary to Bon Courage, IAR has very limited application to verifiability. WP:V is a core principle of the Foundation:Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct.—S Marshall T/C 16:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  IAR aside, this would still weaken NPOV. Not a good idea. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Everything we do or will do is subserviant to the WMF. Including this. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am sorry how did WMF come into this? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Because we are not autonomous and must "bend the knee" to WMF in literally any and all things. The WMF can tell us, for example, that we must dump WP:IAR, and our only allowed response is "yes sir" or retire.

  WP:V appears to be a universal WMF requirement? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  err, what? Bon courage (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  We are required to 'strive towards accuracy and verifiability' by the universal code of conduct. That doesn't mean that we have to do anything in particular with this policy page, though. MrOllie (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Very Polite Person, I can see that you have spent some time thinking about this in depth, but your conclusions, though logical, are wrong. The WMF didn't unilaterally impose the UCOC; it was an outcome of the 2030 strategy work (which was driven by the affiliates, not the WMF; having a strategy makes it easier for some of them to get external grant money). The Board told the WMF staff to support the work, so a joint WMF–volunteer committee did the UCOC work. Our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy was a significant source for it. It was ultimately approved by both online community votes and the WMF Board.

  The WMF has imposed a few content-related requirements (e.g., no copyvios), and they are currently in the process of providing a model policy for NPOV, but basically all of those "imposed from on high" policies were taken from the English Wikipedia. We created them first, and the WMF's Board has added a short version of a few of them to some or all projects later. See, e.g., foundation:BLP for the Board's version of the BLP requirement. This has been very helpful for very small wikis, because they don't need to spend time re-inventing the wheel. And so far, they've all had a significant legal aspect: no copyvios, no child porn, no libel/slander, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well. On this page let's just say the claim that "The WMF didn't unilaterally impose the UCOC" is contentious and disputed. Two consultation phases took place and the en.wiki community wasn't selected as a consultee. The en.wiki community might have agreed in principle to a universal code of conduct existing, but we certainly haven't ratified the text of this universal code of conduct. The people who did the ratifying are the Board of Trustees (although in practice not everyone trusts them). They've been asked to allow us to ratify the text in meta:Open Letter from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees but to date we've only ratified the co-ordinating committee charter. From my perspective it doesn't have the legitimacy of a document the community has ratified.—S Marshall T/C 20:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• I was thinking of things like e.g. rare medical conditions, where okay sources exist but which fall short of the strictures of MEDRS. Bon courage (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be rather against including any facts or claims that are about a rare medical condition and don't have a medically reliable source. (For example, Trump Derangement Syndrome.) Explain again how elevating WP:V weakens NPOV?—S Marshall T/C 16:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  At the moment NPOV is standing at the top of the hill, above everyone else. Moving others there will reduce its prominence. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  No it won't; making these carry the same wording does not and cannot weaken NPOV. It strengthens these. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  If you remove a policy from the set that can be superseded by other policies (presumably by NPOV at least some of the time), of course that would weaken NPOV. MrOllie (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is not at all what would happen. This would simply more iron mandate that every article passage has to thread the needle if challenged of all three. NPOV in no way is weakened here. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Of course it would be gamed. Honestly, proposing three significant change to core policy to align with with what you thought they said (moments after finding out they didn't) seems beyond unwise. Bon courage (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, I stupidly assumed they being core WMF and more important than all our desires and preferences policies would have equal verbiage. How exactly would it be gamed as NPOV is still the firewall it is? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  In the way we're seeing essayed at WP:FT/N, for by example insisting NPOV/WP:FRINGESUBJECTS defers to other PAGs. It would be a field day for the various quacks, UFO-nuts, racists and other fringe-fanciers who besiege the Project. Bon courage (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, it wouldn't? Why would it? No one's insisting NPOV defer to anything. We're saying every line of every article must comply with ALL policy.

  No one is saying remove the language from NPOV. Why would we? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am saying that, and I'm saying it because most editors reading that have no idea what it means in practice. It is unclear, and therefore occasionally causes drama, particularly with editors who get stuck in a rigid thinking pattern, in which it's not just "NPOV" that they consider "non-negotiable", but "my own personal interpretation of the best way to apply the NPOV" that they treat as non-negotiable. Editors must still negotiate and compromise (e.g., to find an acceptable way to phrase something); what they must not do is say something like "For this one subject area, it would be wrong to have a neutral article. We must support the True™ POV in this article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think the simpler and better solution is to simply make NPOV+OR+V equal handcuffs.

  I honestly cannot think of a valid scenario any sentence should exist in the encyclopedia that cannot thread the needle of all three. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  At various points in time, we have had as many as four policies that proclaimed themselves to be 'non-negotiable'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Question. Which Wikipedia policies are negotiable? Where in policy does it say that they are? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Implicitly many are via WP:IAR, but the circumstances in which that really can apply are extremely, extremely, rare. Bon courage (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is a position being posited on FTN that NPOV has some sort of magical elevation that allows weakened application of V, OR and SYNTH to serve the interests of NPOV. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  That may be a fringe position... pun intended. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  As they say, all policies are equal, but NPOV is more equal. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Messing about with one policy because you don't like what people are saying like another seems a poor idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am sorry I do not understand what you mean. My position is that we should change nothing at the moment. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:BLP is the equalest. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NLT too, I'd say. For similar reasons. Bon courage (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish, someone disagrees with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  People are confidently incorrect all the time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, and remove it from NPOV, too for reasons I've explained elsewhere (example). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  As discussed elsewhere, it will be removed from NPOV exactly 72 hours after hell has frozen over. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's been removed and restored and re-worded in multiple policies multiple times over the years. We did it before, and we can do it again. Alternatively, we could add a footnote explaining what that means, which is not that NPOV trumps all the other policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would agree with the footnote idea. And that may start a convergence towards a solution. But perhaps you should avoid the T-word given the political issues and say override, etc. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I actually think given the fervid political context in the US, giving out a message that could be spun as "Wikipedia weakens its requirement for neutrality" might not be the best move from a comms management perspective. But such considerations are above my pay grade. Bon courage (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I thought we all have the same paygrade, namely zero. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose removing it from NPOV. We should simply add it to the others. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  What's above a policy? A superpolicy! But is NPOV above the superpolicy? Is it a duperpolicy?—S Marshall T/C 17:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sympathetic to the idea of removing "This policy is non-negotiable" from WP:NPOV, because as the page is currently written, it is not clear what that phrase is supposed to mean. We could tighten up that paragraph to say, for example, "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." That would express the fact that the policy articulates a fundamental ideal, without dragging in a term of unclear import. Does "non-negotiable" mean that the text of WP:NPOV can never be modified? Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Unneeded: The statement is a bit of aspiration, but the structure of the NPOV policy means that it subsumes in several ways V and NOR ("verifiable" "reliable source" and "cite" are all throughout the NPOV policy). One way to think of the three is, 'verifiability for a piece of information' (V); 'balanced verifiability for a whole article' (NPOV) and 'verifiability for an entire idea/analysis/context' (NOR). --Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  That is an excellent point which I had missed. NPOV typically applies to the article and has a less local application than WP:V which applies to specific statement s Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose there should be a very clear reason why the policy has primacy over others when it is nonnegotiable. Not sure i see one here yet User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

V, OR and NPOV already have primacy over everything. This is to elevate OR and V to the same 'edge' that NPOV has. Every single encyclopedia statement has to hard comply with all three at all times. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Arent all the policies have primacy and “equal”? Why exactly is wp:v particularly more equal? I think that its one of the big three is enough.

(and i do want the ability to invoke IAR, however extremely rarely, on wp:v, i recall there had been a piece of internet minutiae that had poor verifiability but which all agreed was a cute factoid for a tiny stub of an article that all agreed was true and all agreed was so useless that it would always have a poor source, but we all agreed IAR.) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

There are three Wikipedia:Core content policies which have primacy - WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV.

Can you link that article? I'm not convinced the content should be on Wikipedia if it isn't verifiable - in part because if it isn't verifiable it isn't WP:DUE. BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:IAR cannot supersede WP:OR, WP:V, WP:BLP or WP:NPOV.

If we have somewhere, I hate to say this: link it so we can immediately kill it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This isn't even really necessary.
NPOV is:
"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." NPOV requires the use of V in the statement of it's basic principle. You can't follow NPOV without V, so whether NPOV has primacy is entirely irrelevant.
V in it's basic statement of principle says:
"In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people can check that facts or claims correspond to reliable sources. Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information." So it directly states that WP:No original research has to be followed.
If NPOV is non-negotiable then it requires that both V and NOR be followed, not doing so explicitly goes against NPOV. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Responses so far have addressed the "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines" part of the proposal, and I agree that this is not an appropriate thing to state on the policy page. The other part of the proposal, "cannot be superseded by...editor consensus", is already covered by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Zero^talk 02:23, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. What circumstances are there under which we will accept content not being verifiable? If there are none, then we should make it clear that content must be verifiable, without exception. BilledMammal (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  There is no scenario, no matter what, that we can intentionally breach WP:V to support a different policy.

  The idea is impossible to authorize with even every living Wikipedia saying !support, because WMF > 100% of all of us. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  I get the feeling this may be a WP:POINTY proposal; WP:CONEXCEPT is not relevant here - if we want to abolish WP:V, the WMF cannot stop us. BilledMammal (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  It already says Each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable (start of second paragraph) and All content must be verifiable (first sentence of first section) and elsewhere. What would be changed by adding the word non-negotiable to this policy? (And do we really mean non-negotiable, or might we mean something closer to mandatory or without exception?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• In our WP:Five pillars, verifiability is part of NPOV. As others have noted, verifiability is also mentioned on our specific NPOV page. Verifiability may thus already fall under the non-negotiable clause. The addition of the proposed text or its removal from NPOV wouldn't change that these policies work together. CMD (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment This discussion has got completely derailed, and it really isn't anyone's fault. Many who are commenting along the lines that it appears to be a solution looking for a problem, and that they cannot see any scenario where NPOV could ever be used to supercede V. And, it probably wouldn't.

The reason this arose is that editors at FTN have been arguing that NPOV does override NOR, and that therefore, if an article cannot be "neutral" without adding OR content, then NOR doesn't have to be followed anymore and we can add SYNTH and OR to articles as needed to be "compliant" with NPOV.

So this isn't really about V at all, except that: if V, NPOV, and NOR are all three "core content" policies that are "non-negotiable", then they should all say so.

I think the text in NPOV already says this, but some are arguing that because the text isn't also in V and NOR the text in NPOV doesn't really say what it says?

~2026-40817-33 (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

They're not arguing that articles can ignore OR, they're arguing that giving context to a subject isn't OR (which it's not). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

This idea that any policy overrides WP:V is mistaken. NPOV is vital and fundamental, but it doesn't outweigh V or NOR or BLP. It also doesn't override our conduct policies. ("Remove per NPOV" wouldn't excuse a fourth revert, for example.)

There are no circumstances in which you get to make a contested claim in mainspace without verifying it. Not even for NPOV. NPOV is not the highest policy.

If someone is pretending otherwise then we need to educate them.—S Marshall T/C 07:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not verifiability. It is that some people think WP:SYN prevents us from saying that the sky is blue in articles about blue-sky deniers, even with sources that the sky is blue, because those sources didn't specifically say that that specific blue-sky denier is incorrect. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, right, those people. Some of them just can't be educated.  :(.—S Marshall T/C 08:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

If someone says the sky isn't blue, it's not OR to say it is blue as there are sources for the sky being blue, and it's not SYNTH as the sky being blue is explicitly stated in sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that this example is allowed, but the reason you give for it not being SYNTH is incorrect. SYNTH is not avoided by using reliable sources, it is about combining information from different sources. Check the examples at WP:SYNTH. Zero^talk 12:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I was making a slightly different point. If the statement is found in one source, it can't be the synthesis of two sources (by definition). If there's a source that says the sky is blue and that it is wrong to say the sky is not blue, then that simply can't be synthesis. If someone says the sky is not blue, that source could be used to give the context that the sky is blue and people saying that it isn't are wrong. It seems some editors think that's OR/SYNTH unless a source mention the specific person saying the sky is blue and refutes them by name. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Search for "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source" at WP:SYNTH. Zero^talk 04:24, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Still not relevant to my point, if one sources states something it can not ever be SYNTH. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:01, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Not exactly that. What's being argued is that a bio article about a person should be based upon sources about that person; and that, if there is a blue sky denier who meets general notability, but zero sources about the person bother to point out that the sky is blue, then our article about that person should not do so either. Because if NO other sources in the world thought it was necessary when writing about that person, why should we?

Absolutely nobody, however, objected to wikilinking to articles that call out the position as fringe. Only to writing it in the bio article if no sources about the subject do so.

Meanwhile we've got a huge bloc of editors who think it's fine to compile lists of UFO believers that have committed violent crimes, the entire article for which is SYNTH, but policy be damned! which worries me most for the precedent it sets: what other "undesirable" group might have similar "hit" articles tomorrow? There's a long history of this kind of thing being done by bigots of various stripes (antisemites & Jews, homophobes and gay people, and on and on). But I digress... ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

There might exist fringe believers who have some level of notability but about whose fringe beliefs no acceptable mainstream source can be found. We can leave SYN out of it: their beliefs might merely be so obscure that no mainstream source has taken the effort to address those beliefs at all, regardless of mentioning the believer. The answer to this dilemma is simple, and does not require us to pit one policy against each other: if we cannot have an NPOV compliant article about a subject, then we cannot have an article about them, and not having an article does not conflict with any policies. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Subject A says "X is true", in one sources, "people who say X is true are wrong", in another source. No original research, no synthesis. A source says X is not true, and the arguement that X is not true is not the synthesis of multiple sources. It is not required to have a source saying that when subject A says "X is true" then it's not true. That's nonsense, it's an argument that whether X is true or not depends on who says it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

But (again) why are we even mentioning that Subject A says X in the first place? If no independent source notes that A says X, it is UNDUE for Wikipedia to note it. And if we don’t note that A says X, then there is no need to debunk X. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Quite a common case is for Subject A to mention X (e.g. that they cured various celebrities' alcoholism with acupuncture) and it gets a shedload of credulous news coverage (in - so far as many wikipedians are concerned - independent "RS" right?). So it's got to be mentioned. That then necessitates the context. Bon courage (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If you scroll up, at least one experienced editor has argued (obviously incorrectly, in my view) that WP:NPOV trumps WP:V. I think that in light of that, we do need some clear-cut change to stake that idea in the heart, even if it isn't this one in particular. It is well-meaning and presumably intended to resolve the one dispute where the idea was proposed, but yes, as a general principle it would break our ability to function. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Is it really a good idea to change policies every time someone says something wild (especially such a niche argument that does not arise often)? It won't change people making arguments that make little sense to the rest of the community. Just tell them their argument makes little sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• I would suggest that some people seem to be leaning too heavily on the "non-negotiable" clause, giving it a weight (in its common sense) it can't bear. Surely, it cannot mean in practice we can't negotiate the terms of the policy or whether an article meets it. We do those things every day, all day. All it can really mean in practice is 'we must have a neutral point of view policy to follow', (we could by way of extreme example, cut the NPOV policy back to, "Every article must be presented in a neutral point of view" [subnom, verifiably presented without original research]) everything else is details, up for consensus decision. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose This would make a policy page longer without actually clarifying anything. Fundamental policies should only be rewritten if there is an ongoing, systemic problem that can be solved in no other way. The WP:FTN discussion mentioned above is insufficient motivation for a policy rewrite, and to the extent there is an actual problem there (I remain unconvinced the tempest has left the teacup), the fix would be to modify a guideline that pertains to that concern more specifically. From a wiki-lawyering standpoint, I don't even see how this proposal is connected to the argument that has apparently prompted it. That dispute is about the application of WP:SYNTH, and WP:SYNTH is about combining pieces of information each of which is individually verifiable. Even if we declared that WP:V is "non-negotiable", the same dispute would remain. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. We already have an appropriate distinction between guidelines and policies. We should not introduce a second meaningful level of distinction between negotiable policies and non-negotiable policies. And if "non-negotiable" does not introduce a meaningful distinction, it is excess verbiage that should not be added. If the same wording is present elsewhere it should be removed for the same reasons. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support, reluctantly. I don't like adding the statement anywhere, but the idea that WP:NPOV has (or has ever had, or will ever have, or ever could have) primacy over WP:V is both pernicious and deeply wrong. It contradicts the wording on NPOV, and it contradicts all our existing practices and procedures. If experienced editors have been led so awry by the lack of this one sentence here as to inappropriately try to argue that NPOV somehow trumps V, then we need to put a stake in that as quickly as possible; and this is one way to do it. I'll also note that most of the replies haven't touched on this aspect, so if this particular suggestion fails I would support any other changes, on this or any other page, that would kill that idea dead. The proposal to allow NPOV to trump V would undermine everything that makes Wikipedia function; under absolutely no circumstance can that argument, or anything derived from it, be allowed to advance even a fraction of an inch. WP:V is central to our functioning as an encyclopedia, and while it has to be considered in light of other policies, nothing trumps it entirely or allows us to simply ignore it, in any context. I would suggest an alternative wording that establishes that, if people are concerned about negotiability, eg. V is a central tenet of Wikipedia and cannot be overridden or superseded by any other policies, procedures, or guidelines - I feel like much of the objection is to the "consensus" issue rather than to that basic fact. --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  It would not kill the idea dead. It would simply introduce an extra line for tendentious debaters to wikilawyer through. If you want to kill the idea that NPOV has primacy over V, remove the "non-negotiable" line from NPOV. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Or have NPOV say “This, along with our other core content policies, is non-negotiable”. No need to list them. Blueboar (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  The real issue here is that NPOV needs to be clarified or fixed. Copying the same confusing language elsewhere won't help. I don't think making the confusing language more expansive is really a fix either. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think we're kind of struggling with the historical artifact that we have separate pages expressing different parts of the same ethos. So, we end up with arguments about how the "this isn't the place to screw around" rule somehow conflicts with or overpowers itself.

  In lieu of melting down the policy pages into an amalgam that reflects the project's hard-earned experience without being bizarrely fractured, I don't know how to address that.

  I think David Eppstein is right here: the proposed addition looks like wiki-lawyer fodder. Removing "non-negotiable" from WP:NPOV would harmonize the two pages and make WP:NPOV more clear. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Waste of good space. Just have a look at the start of WP:NPOV which says very little useful. It tries to assert authority over other Wikipedias in oposition to what WP:POLICY says in its lead. It denies WP:IAR. WP:Avoid instruction creep (based on WP:POLICY#Content if you need a policy to say it). NadVolum (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Location of the citation

'The location of any citation—including whether one is present in the article at all—is unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section §Citations, etc.'

If I understand this correctly, it seems to be saying that it's enough to show a citation to other editors you are discussing the issue with, but you don't actually have to add it near the material or even in the article. That seems extreme. The citation should make the info verifiable by anybody who reads the article in the future, not just by Wikipedians who are discussing it at the moment. There is an optional practice of not placing citations in ledes, and hence not directly beside the claim, but I can't think of any legitimate reason for not including the citation for material that has been disputed anywhere in the article at all. Anonymous44 (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Some (i.e., a lot of) material is required to have:

• an inline citation to
• a reliable source that
• directly supports

the material.

The "inline citation" bit is the part about the location of the citation. The "directly supports" part is about whether the cited source matches what the Wikipedia article says. This means that you do have to have the citation near the material, but the words that require the citation to be near the material are the "inline citation" bit and not the "directly supports" bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but I do wonder: does the policy need to state this? What exactly is this sentence trying to prevent? It may be correct but I can't think of any situation that would be harmed by its removal. On the other hand, I can easily imagine newbies being stung by this because they misinterpreted its meaning then end up getting blocked because they thought it meant something it doesn't. ~2026-40817-33 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

We have long held that some statements are so obviously verifiable that it is not necessary to include an inline citation. “The capital city of France is Paris” is an example. I suppose you could say we assume the citation is “just look at any modern world atlas”, and thus don’t bother to put a blue clicky number for it.

Another example of something that doesn’t need a citation is a basic plot summary of a work of fiction - which is assumed to be verified by the work itself, so there is no need to put a citation to it. Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't imagine how a newbie would get blocked because they incorrectly thought that "directly supports" means "the little blue clicky number has to be touching the sentence".

We can add more links to the Wikipedia:Directly supports page, if anyone thinks that would be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)