Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

For background, Wikipedia:Teahouse#Adding_content_without_a_citation.

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

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

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

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

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

Let's read that sentence in its context:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The FAQ at the top of this page says:

Does every single sentence need to be followed by an inline citation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is important to distinguish between several states:

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

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

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

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

• The advice I like to give new editors: “Before you add anything to Wikipedia, have a source on hand for it… even for things you think don’t need sourcing.” That way, should another editor demand that you cite a source, you can quickly provide it… and thus avoid having to waste hours trying to convince the other editor it isn’t needed. Blueboar (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  This is very good advice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, it's very good advice, but the problem we seem to have is a few editors thinking that WP:BURDEN requires an inline citation for everything, even things that don't fall into the four required types. This has come up a few times in the last year or so. While it's mostly the same handful of editors, their persistence with believing that BURDEN imposes this requirement makes me believe that they are unable to understand this contextually.

  My goal is basically to move these editors from their current stance:

  • Absolutely everything that gets "added" is required to have an inline citation per BURDEN

  to the usual refuge of zealous citation enforcers, which sounds something like:

  • "Well, there might not technically be a sentence in here that lets me blindly revert anything without a source, but I still think everything should be cited. BTW, just so everyone knows, I believe that every single sentence is WP:LIKELY to get challenged some time between now and the heat death of the universe, so I'm still going to demand an inline citation for absolutely everything that gets added to any article, and there's nothing you can do about that."

  What do you think we can do to make the intent of BURDEN clearer to this small group of editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  There is no stance to change. At NPP, if I come across a sentence that lacks a citation, and it isn't the lead, I will add the ^{[citation needed]} tag to it. If it happens more than once, I'll slap Template:More citations needed on the article. 11WB (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  From the POV of policy writing, we need all the policies and guidelines to present a coherent set of principles, rules, and advice, so that editors are able to find what they need and to understand their limitations, so that we can prevent or resolve disputes and so that we can produce decent encyclopedia articles (meaning the sentences/paragraphs in the article, rather than the references list; readers almost never read the sources, and the sources are a means to an end, rather than being the end goal).

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

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

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

  • requires that it be possible to find a reliable source that could be cited for absolutely all article content,
  • requires that the sources meet some minimal standards for quality,
  • requires the inline citation of some sources in most parts of most articles, and
  • stops people from claiming "Not it!" when those sources are required.

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

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

  TL;DR: If the current wording of BURDEN makes editors incorrectly think that this policy requires an inline citation for all "additions" to articles, then we should change the wording of BURDEN to help them understand what we actually meant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Be careful not to WP:WALLOFTEXT. I've personally hit an impasse here. I am not understanding whether the argument here is that unsourced content should be allowed on Wikipedia (which it should not!), or something else entirely. You've lost me. If you think BURDEN should be reworded, start an RfC. 11WB (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Then listen to WhatamIdoing. Not everything needs a citation. Everything that a reasonable person would reasonably think needs to have a citation needs a citation. The person adding the info should think about the reader, and a person looking at the information added should also consider the editor who added it. No one's effort should be wasted pedantically citing things that are readily verifiable, like "X song by Y artist appeared on Z movie soundtrack". I have found cn tags on blindingly easy to verify bits of info like that, and I'm inclined to just remove them because it's not worth the hassle of an inline citation. Jclemens (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@11WB, you're missing the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The problem is editors not adding sourcing when they should. It might be that a few editors misunderstand BURDEN, but that's not the general issue that is faced by the encyclopedia. The issue of unsourced and disruptive edits far outweighs any misunderstanding, as seen in articles and noticeboards across the project. A few out of place CN tags are a very minor worry in comparison. I would also note that if the community wants one thing and policy says another, it's policy not community that's meant to change. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think that one of our problems is experienced editors not having a shared understanding of what the sourcing requirements are. This lack of understanding leads to disruptive edits. A few unnecessary {{citation needed}} tags are a minor problem (at most), but arguments in articles and noticeboards across the projects because some editors believe that verifiABLE means "able to verify" and other editors believe that it means "already has a little blue clicky number" causes bigger problems, especially wrt the effect that this contradictory advice has on newcomers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  Folks this is simple:

  1) All material must be Verifiable… but…

  2) Verifiable is not the same as cited.

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

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

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

  6) Once something IS challenged, a citation becomes required. THAT is what BURDEN is about. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

  From how I've always interpreted V: Except for the 4 criteria, you don't need to cite your content, but it's not going to stay like that forever... or even a few seconds probably, so just cite it to save the trouble. toby ^{(t)(c)(rw)(omo)} 03:41, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Blueboar's description, and I agree with Toby that it's better when you are adding content to voluntarily err on the side of citing more than is required. I would only add that when someone else is adding content, we shouldn't demand that other people exceed the minimum requirements. This is a variation on Postel's law: Do more than you have to, but accept less than perfection from others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Blueboar, steps two through six are irrelevant/unnecessary. The policy states what you put in step one, and that is where WP:V's relevance ends, at least from a process POV. Everything you've outlined after that is just content disputes. 11WB (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  By the way, I do want to exit this discussion, but I've been pinged back here... If @WhatamIdoing starts an RfC, I will give my opinion on wording there. This discussion is not going to result in policy rewordings, which is why I haven't engaged in analysing semantics here. Until that time, for me, it is simply enforcement of process at NPP. 11WB (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  This discussion could result in this policy being reworded. Almost none of the changes to policies and guidelines actually have an RFC behind them. RFCs are only used when the proposal is large or a significant departure from the generally understood meaning.

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

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

  I've seen a few editors blocked for bad faith challenges, but they were obviously hounding. Usually after disagreements on other articles and acting out some sort of 'revenge'. I think it's important to assume good faith usually though, as readers shouldn't have to learn every aspect of policy WORDSALAD to challenge something they know to be wrong. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Or to clarify the unsourced-article problem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The community's consensus AIUI is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Ideally yes, but you'd be ok. WP:TIND means that no editor can enforce WP:BURDEN in any venue.—S Marshall T/C 20:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  TIND is also an essay. 11WB (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  It is, but it's an essay about policy and it expresses a fact about policy. The fact is this: You can be required to source your edits, but you can't be required to source your edits now. And you can't be required to source your edits this year, or next year, or this decade. And nobody can revert or delete them even if there's widespread agreement that they're problematic and sanctionable.

  If you doubt this, try deleting an inadequately-sourced lugstub.

  TIND is the right rule, even though I find it annoying when people who're blatantly abusing the encyclopaedia weaponize it. The alternative would be a rule that Bob can follow Alice around reverting every single unsourced edit, and we have to deal with volunteers who do that.

  S Marshall's perfect version of this rule would look something like this: Finding sources is everyone's job. You can only remove material written by another editor if you've made a proper, good-faith search for sources and found none. If you do remove easily-sourceable material then you will be pilloried at the Village Pump and sneered at until you're sorry, and if you do it again you might be blocked.

  This rule only applies to material written by other editors. You're welcome to remove material that was written by you, or material written by a LLM, or material you reasonably suspect to have been written by a LLM, without restriction.

  Unfortunately I don't get to make the rules, so this wise and excellent approach will never be adopted.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  TIND isn't relevant then, as I don't remove unsourced content, I apply tags or banners. I explained my NPP process for unsourced content here. 11WB (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Might not be relevant to you, but I meant that for Thincat. Thincat might or might not remove unsourced content but he has an interest in this because he writes content. An activity which I commend to everyone, by the way.—S Marshall T/C 22:14, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  I responded to your statement that TIND prohibits patrollers from challenging unsourced content. That is not correct. TIND and WP:TIAD are essays. If @Thincat contributes content and articles to Wikipedia, I fully support that. However at the same time, I would reasonably expect them to find sources for what they wrote, so that others don't have to spend time either adding those sources in themself, contacting @Thincat to add those sources or tagging the content as unsourced when it should be sourced. 11WB (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Throughout this conversation, I've felt that you and I are not communicating very effectively. If that's my fault, then I apologise, but I want to clarify that in this section, I am not talking about NPP, and I am not talking about you. Please do not take this personally.

  It is true that TIND is an essay. But it is an essay that describes a feature of policy. The feature of policy that it describes is that although you must source your edits, there is no particular timescale in which you must do so. When I say "TIND", I do not mean the essay-rated page, but the feature of policy that is that page's subject.—S Marshall T/C 14:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  There is a disconnect between how myself and others such as @WAID are interpreting these policies. I don't understand the need to over analyse and attempt to add detailed bullet points and sections to existing policies that function fine. Introducing all of this unnecessary verbiage will, as @Amakuru said, permit content outside of MINREF to be uncited.

  These proposed changes will have a pretty serious effect on patrolling and will cause Wikipedia to be less reliable in the long-term. I cannot reasonably support something that is detrimental to the project. Unfortunately, and I say this respectfully, whilst @WAID agrees that all content needs to be verifiable, such a lax view on not immediately citing sources, is very worrying. 11WB (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  With respect, 11WB, I think you are misunderstanding what @WhatamIdoing has been saying almost this entire thread. WAID does not want to change anything about the policy as it stands but merely has suggested to add or modify some language slightly in such a way so that it clarifies existing policy for a clearer and more obvious understanding for all.

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

  @WAID proposed the following be added:

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

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

  These additions would be detrimental to Wikipedia in a large way, which is why myself and others have opposed them. 11WB (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think you are mostly in the minority here actually, and earlier you had stated your mistaken understanding of "all content must be verifiable" to mean that all content must be cited. You've effectively been trying to push a new policy or to alter existing policy to require citations on every line of content, which is not, and never has been the WP:PG on Wikipedia. If consensus does end up support this change to longstanding Wikipedia policy, so be it, but as of right now no one is suggesting a change to policy, merely clarifications so that such mistaken understandings do not persist. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 15:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  11WB,

  • This policy already permits uncited content outside of MINREF. It always has. The fact that it already permits this appears to have escaped your notice.
  • I hope that neither you nor any other reviewers are making Frivolous or excessive demands for anything.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Iljhgtn, I disagree that I'm in the minority. Multiple editors, including at least one admin have voiced their opposition to @WAID's proposals.

  If this is making "excessive demands" then I really don't know what to say. Clearly the way myself and others patrol is very "disruptive". 11WB (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Nobody said that all tagging is always frivolous or excessive. The kind of tagging that is frivolous or excessive is (potentially) disruptive; the kind of tagging that is not frivolous or excessive (probably) isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 13:42, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Kinda. If you challenge something under WP:V, you have the option to remove it immediately - TIND means you're not required to do so, but V clearly allows it (Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.) Once you've removed it, anyone else who revert-wars it back in without an inline source is clearly violating both WP:V (it has been challenged, so if they want to re-add it it must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material) and WP:BURDEN (they're the one who has to produce the citation.) TIND provides no support for that revert whatsoever. Even if we assumed TIND had wide acceptance, it only protects inaction, it can't possibly protect actual actions - it allows someone to avoid having to personally remove the text in question by saying "well, there's no rush to remove it", but doesn't change the fact that they're violating policy by restoring it. In fact, they're violating TIND by restoring it, because they're rushing to re-add something (there's no rush to restore it, either!) Basically, TIND is an argument for leaving an article in a policy-violating state (assuming the issue isn't pressing, like BLP-sensitive stuff); it's never a valid argument for a revert that puts an article back in a policy-violating state. --Aquillion (talk) 06:48, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with this analysis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support minor changes to burden, somewhere between subtle (2) and overboard (3). I like the first option presented, as it addresses a point I raised above, although there's probably still room for improvement in the 1st sentence. Perhaps a simpler change from "could be cited" to "could be located and cited" would suffice.
  Also, how does this impact the rest of the section? Is there an opportunity to trim back? The taller the wall, the harder it is to see over. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I think there are some small-ish opportunities to shorten the section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Agree. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 15:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the problem that I would like to solve:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ActivelyDisinterested, which kind of nonsense?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commitments are key. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

What is that? I can't see that link. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 16:31, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a piece of research on commitment, types of dialogue, and fallacies. Hours are being spent here on stuff that has already been solved by argumentation theorists.

Boldness is only a vivid way of expressing the freedom to commit to a claim on a page. To challenge any claim, you need to *commit* to challenging it. That is, you dispute it: you have reasons to believe it is false.

You actually checked, and what you found doesn't look like what is being said. You are not simple questioning, wondering, or playing devil's advocate. You believe that the claim you dispute needs support, and you commit to that belief.

I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not to play games with chaps powered by incredulity. I expect that people who dispute mean it, and can carry their own weight. Once you realize that you commit to disputing a claim, you should feel the need to validate it yourself. Otherwise your suspicions are baseless.

I could tolerate incredulity from time to time. Editors are not always paying much attention. But if you ever systematically question all the claims I put on a page while doing no work whatsoever, we'll have to talk. Having to work for someone who is not committed to building an encyclopedia is totally uncool. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Who is not committed to building an encyclopedia? Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 16:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Someone who fails to commit. By "you" I'm not referring to you in particular. I don't know you. But I'm telling you that you need to commit. We all do. At all times. On both sides of a debate over a claim. Claimants need to commit to a claim strongly enough to be able to support it when being asked, but not by anyone who drives by: by disputants who sought to establish support for that claim, and found none. Even if they did not research anything, they need to commit to their challenge.

It's like in poker. Someone raises you. You call the bluff. People don't get to call without putting chips of their own: spectators can't play. These chips represent commitment. You commit to see the end of that hand. Unless you fold later on, in which case you still lost something.

Suppose an editor tag bombs mundane claims you made with citation neededs. You look back, and find support in less than a minute. Worse, you realize that all that editor needed to do was to read the paragraph through its end. What would you infer? Selbstporträt (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: If we're going to do an RfC style vote, then I have to oppose any wording changes outright. The wording proposals suggested by @WAID effectively make it permissible to not cite sources outside of MINREF. 11WB (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for confirming that you agree that these changes to the wording don't change the rules, but only correct your perception of the rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  If you want the majority of Wikipedia to be unsourced, that is your prerogative. I am not going to support that. 11WB (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  The policies are supposed to reflect the community's consensus, not the views of Her Serene Illustriousness WhatamIdoing. Like @S Marshall, I would prefer some changes, but the community has so far not yet adopted my views. If I ever get crowned queen of Wikipedia, I'll let you know, but in the meantime, the question isn't "Does the policy do what you or I want?" The question is "Does the policy clearly tell people what the community's consensus is, or is it written so that wikilawyers and other people who disagree with the community's consensus can all claim that the policy supports their view?" Muddled and self-contradictory policies are a Bad Thing.

  BTW, I've been told that we're already a bit above the 50% mark, if you count in a sentences-per-reference way, so you don't need to worry about the majority of Wikipedia being unsourced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  I am not going to acknowledge the sarcasm, which is entirely unnecessary by the way. I also don't know how you can put a percentage on unsourced content, especially when were talking about mainspace only, where new content is moved to every minute and other articles are also deleted frequently. That figure would never be the same and is too vast to quantify. The policy says that all content needs to be verifiable, that means citing a source. It is plain as day. Your wording changes to pick apart and stress every minute detail is ridiculously unnecessary. I have been respectful in this rather long-winded discussion, I would appreciate it if you could offer the same level of respect by not resorting to blatant sarcasm. 11WB (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  "[Verifiability] means each fact or claim must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any facts or claims challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." What does "additionally" mean to you? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 00:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Under the premise that anything that is added short of WP:BLUE will be challenged, everything should be cited. 11WB (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  The definition of challenge is that you're concerned "that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source" for a piece of information.

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

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

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

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

  The presence or absence of a citation doesn't determine whether the material is verifiable. In some cases, the presence or absence of a citation may determine whether the material complies with this policy (which requires 100% verifiability and quite a lot of, but still less than 100%, citations), but the presence or absence of a citation doesn't change the verifiable/unverifiable status of the material itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, there can be time gap between adding information that lacks an inline citation but is verifiable, and actually adding the inline citation in. But why? I collaborate quite often with several of the WP:VG editors. The first step they take when creating drafts is finding the sources, before even adding any information in. An example: User:Cukie Gherkin/Rattata. I haven't actually checked that page yet, but I know that @Cukie always locates sources first, so I don't need to check it. Adding information without a source, to then add a source later is the incorrect order. If you can't find a source for something at the moment, don't publish it on the project. 11WB (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, that's a good process, but the order in which things are added actually has nothing to do with the question of whether the material is verifiable.

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

  Compare:

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

  Depending on the statement (e.g., if the statement is about cancer statistics instead of sky-is-blue kind of content), then that verifiable material is probably still required to have an inline citation. But the uncited cancer statistics are still Y verifiable; they're just in violation of the parts of this policy that require an inline citation in addition to being verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Apologies if it seemed like I was treating this as an official "RfC-style" !vote. That was not my intention. It was just a response to a proposal. We can remove the bolding if you'd like. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, and that's exactly why I wrote it that way. If something is genuinely significant and has broad consensus for inclusion, it is normally the work of an instant to demonstrate that. But we have had months-long arguments with people trying to crowbar tangential nonsense into articles. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand that this is your POV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We want something like this:

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

We don't want this:

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

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

Does anyone mind if I make a slight copyedit to WP:ONUS?

This really is in the realm of a pet peeve, but pronouns without an antecedent bug me these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

As long as it is clear that the tweak in language does not resolve my more fundamental concerns about ONUS being part of WP:V in the first place… no objection. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Objection. The current text is shorter and it's clear what "those" refers to. (I've boldly written "it's clear" even though "it" had no clear antecedent.) Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The grammatical antecedent in your sentence is "the current text". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Not clearly, but what matters is it's clear that's an objection. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's clear enough that it could be on a worksheet for an English class. (US teachers would object to your choice to omit the comma before the conjunction, though; I understand that American English is stricter about that than other English varieties.) But as you say, that's not what matters; what matters is that we appear to have reached an agreement for a shorter change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on people seeking to include disputed content.

It's one character longer.—S Marshall T/C 18:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

This is the formulation I support. Arcticocean ■ 13:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: One of the proposed changes has now been made. Arcticocean ■ 13:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, Butwhatdoiknow changed from "people" to "editors" which was part of what WhatamIdoing proposed, what I opposed, and not what you initially supported. "Editors" should mean "those who have ever edited or are editing any Wikipedia page". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Given your definition of editors, I'm having trouble seeing why it doesn't apply. Are you saying that someone who is seeking to include may never have edited before and, therefore, is not an editor? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I said "or are editing". That's more than "edited before". So an IP who has never edited before adds a plea to the talk page seeking consensus -- which is editing a page currently, so that IP's ipso facto an editor. The Simple English Wikipedia definition doesn't have a similar example, it may be less inclusive. Would your definition of "editors" be less or more inclusive? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

My definition is the same as yours, which I believe is less inclusive than "people" but more inclusive than the Simple English Wikipedia "editor" definition. Given our agreed definition, why not use "editors" in ONUS? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I think we could agree that "people" is more inclusive because people who've never edited could seek consensus outside Wikipedia. Is that the only thing that this definition of "editors" excludes? And does everyone agree that nobody will ever cite this policy and use the less inclusive definition? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Does "seeking consensus outside Wikipedia" mean something like someone posting on social media that they wish someone would change a Wikipedia article?

People who subscribe to the principles described in Wikipedia:External discussion and Wikipedia:Off-wiki policy discussion will not 'count' discussions off wiki as being evidence of consensus. Instead, they're likely to see it as simply irrelevant: Who cares what someone said on some other website? Consensus is something that's reached by editors, not by Twitter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• Folks who cite ONUS are limiting their remarks to those "seeking to include." Given that limitation, "people" casts too wide a net. "Editors," as distinguished from readers, is more meaningful. And that is true whether the seekers are operating in or out of the Wikipedia universe. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes it could mean something like that. And I doubt that anybody cares about that. But perhaps somebody cares about the two questions that I asked. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Editors, at the English Wikipedia, includes anyone who edits. We differentiate between registered editors and unregistered editors (IPs/TAs), but they are all editors.
2. Anybody who agrees that nobody will ever mis-cite any of our rules hasn't been paying attention. A reasonable question would be "Are we going to let them get away with spouting nonsense uncontradicted?" but not anywhere near "Do we agree that people will always be precise and accurate?"

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't ask you specifically and consider the questions open. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

As soon as you make an edit here, you're an editor, including anyone commenting on a talk page. Any consensus offsite should not be considered here. No, we can't assume or expect no one will ever cite any policy in ways we here in this discussion don't intend or approve. Valereee (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

And that means that from a Wikipedia policy page perspective, "people" and "editors" are interchangeable. Why fight over which to use? It doesn't make sense to argue about it.—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but if someone is seriously going to argue that "people" can form consensus elsewhere? I think it's silliness, but apparently that's the concern lol Valereee (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I regret that people seem to have gotten the impression that I was arguing in favour of taking into account what people say off Wikipedia. Given that I have failed to get answers and have instead seen comments like this, I give up and withdraw the questions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Answers have been provided, let's generalize them:

"Editors" includes participating in editorial decisions, and excludes whatever cannot be identified as an editing commitment: reading, adminship, color commentary, etc. I would like to restrict the concept of editing to participation in the mainspace, but I wouldn't be able to do so under the current understanding. That should count as an existential proof.

It's impossible to know what the future may bring, and so it is not possible to do any pinky promise about it. That being said, it would be hard to argue that the definition excludes metapedians who participate in editorial decisions. Editing involves an editorial process. It is self explanatory, like "the peanut gallery is a gallery". That should count as an analytic proof.

Changing a circular "they" with an analytic "editors" shouldn't harm anyone. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I recently suggested at Talk:List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Twelve-Day War that the downing of two Iranian jets by Qatari forces should be mentioned in list of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the 2026 Iran war (these were originally one article). Another user opposed the suggestion because no recording of the incident was released. However, my understanding is this isn't necessary because the incident is already covered by multiple reliable sources. In many cases, recordings of an event may not even exist at all.

So are there any situations in which visual evidence is required to corroborate a claim?

As far as I'm aware, "pics or it didn't happen" isn't one of our official policies. I'm also pretty sure that images whose provenance is unknown can't be accepted as evidence because they could easily be generated with AI these days. Ixfd64 (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

• I don't think it's completely unreasonable in context for that user to suggest the aircraft downings could be a propaganda hoax. The CNN source is a good one but that user's question is, how has the CNN journalist checked their facts? It's not a totally wild question.—S Marshall T/C 08:52, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Editors can use there own judgement to exclude information, but there's no 'picts or it didn't happen' rule. They need to explain a good reason to mistrust the source, or other sources that call it into question. I would guess CNN were told about this by a source, and checked the facts by finding a second source for the details. This is a common way for journalists to check their stories before posting. In this case they have two sources they obviously trust who are telling them the same thing.
Of course there is no harm in waiting for additional confirmation, there is no deadline and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:59, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

As others have noted there is no "pics or it didn't happen", but a looser "more reliable sourcing to put it in Wikivoice" may be a cogent argument. CMD (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the article in question purports to limit losses to those that are "visually" confirmed. I don't think this is a reasonable requirement, and treads uncomfortably into requiring WP:OR verification of primary sources. If reliable sources (like CNN), say unequivocally in editorial voice that something happened, we shouldn't be in the business of parsing whether CNN's evidence (which may or may not be in the article, may or may not be visual in nature) is "based on visual evidence". Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The article in question seems odd in a few respects, but given it's about one sentence long has there been discussion of including less-confirmed shootdowns and accidents in a different section or some other solution that isn't a binary in/out? CMD (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks like the part about visual confirmation was only added later. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I've started a list of discussions significantly involving WP:ONUS at Wikipedia:Verifiability/Onus. Feel free to add more links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

So if Onus were moved to Consensus, since Consensus is not just a content policy, then based on its own logic, we could immediately remove Onus due to lack of consensus? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Any part of any policy can be boldly removed at any time. You could do that now, if you thought that's what the community wanted. There's nothing special about a content policy that protects its contents from changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Non sequitur? Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

If Onus is here at WP:V, we could immediately remove Onus if we thought there was a lack of consensus.

If Onus is moved to WP:CON, we could immediately remove Onus if we thought there was a lack of consensus.

Moving Onus to another page makes no difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

You previously said that Onus does not apply to what we write at V. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Let me try again:

The wording of Onus has nothing to do with whether you can edit or remove Onus. The location of Onus (including, but not limited to, whether the Onus sentence and/or shortcut happens to be in a 'content policy' or not) has nothing to do with whether you can edit or remove Onus.

If Onus is here at WP:V, you can immediately remove Onus because WP:PGBOLD – which you will notice is not Onus and also not any part of WP:CON – says any editor can boldly edit any policy, guideline, or other page, including WP:V.

If Onus is moved to WP:CON, you can still immediately remove Onus because WP:PGBOLD – which you will notice again is still not Onus and also not any part of WP:CON – says any editor can boldly edit any policy, guideline, or other page, including WP:CON.

Do you understand this now? The only thing standing between you and moving or removing Onus is your belief that your fellow editors might scream for your head at ANI if you do so. The only policy we have about editing policies says that you are officially allowed to move or remove that sentence now, if you think that would improve things and meet with your fellow editors' acceptance, and that you would still be allowed to do that if the Onus sentence were on a different policy page. Your "So if Onus were moved to Consensus, since Consensus is not just a content policy" clause is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems like you're focused on the word "could", which misses the point. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

What point would that be? Selbstporträt (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

If the word "could" is replaced with..."easily could", "likely would"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Which "could", in which claim? Selbstporträt (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

The only claim? So if Onus were moved to Consensus, since Consensus is not just a content policy, then based on its own logic, we *could* immediately remove Onus due to lack of consensus. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

"So if Onus were moved to Consensus, since Consensus is not just a content policy, then based on its own logic, we could immediately remove Onus due to lack of consensus?" was a claim?

I thought it was a question. Selbstporträt (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a leading question. Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

So it's a by-your-logic argument that fails to identify the point, right before a rhetorical question about a non sequitur where the inference has yet to be identified? No wonder people miss these points. What was the point, again? I'm sure you can be direct. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

So what do you think of the point, now that it's been repeated? Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Are we playing Questions? Selbstporträt (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

In re If the word "could" is replaced with..."easily could", "likely would": You can do that right now. It would take about three clicks and typing a quick edit summary.

Do you mean "What if we could easily remove it and nobody would create a bunch of drama about putting it back?" I predict we would find an active consensus in favor of keeping ONUS in its current remove-the-garbage form, but I don't mind if someone wants to find out for certain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, this does suggest a way forwards. Why not brainstorm up some alternative wordings and locations for ONUS, then run an RFC where people choose between them? With the understanding that a failure to reach a consensus in this RFC would result in removal? Of course, people could endorse the current version, but it would be just one option. The only caveat is that I would ask that we establish beforehand, and state clearly as part of the RFC, that "we should have something" is not a valid outcome to the RFC - one specific wording must reach a clear consensus, and if none has one, ONUS gets entirely deleted until someone can reach a clear consensus on a specific wording to replace it. (Again, people who like the current wording could endorse it, and people could choose multiple ranked options and so on - but if not enough people endorse any one wording, we'd get nothing; we'd specifically establish from the start that a bartender's closure is rejected as an option; if there's agreement we should have something, but not an agreement on what, then we remove the current version until / unless we have a clear consensus on what to add in its place.) Would that be acceptable? The idea is to avoid the current situation where the existing wording is privileged despite never having a clear consensus, and to force people to actually stop and think and either produce an unambiguous consensus for it or build a consensus behind what, if anything, replaces it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aquillion, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but With the understanding that a failure to reach a consensus in this RFC would result in removal sounds like someone's dad throwing away the (whatever) because the kids wouldn't stop bickering over it. :D Valereee (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Beyond the dozen or so editors who regularly show up for these discussions, ONUS appears to be commonly used and accepted by editors. Throwing it out because of disagreement about it's wording or placement seems a stretch. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:18, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Plus it dooms the RfC. People who'd rather see ONUS go away than not be their perfect version could just add more versions to split the !vote. It's hard enough to get consensus when there are two choices, much less five. Valereee (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a really helpful timeline. I've been following the discussions around ONUS, but it's all sort of blurred together recently.

For my own clarity, @WhatamIdoing, are you thinking this timeline of discussions can be a way to inform an RfC in the near future? Valereee (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

No. I'm thinking of it mainly as a way to not have to go find the original diff in the page history ever again. Or at least until I forget that I've created this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest you add it to the talk page banner. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)