Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 92

Content drift is what happens online when a URL remains live, but the content at that URL "drifts" as it is modified, updated, or replaced. Wikipedia has policies, guidelines, essays, and documentation on how to handle URLs that die, but not those that drift.

Published citation style guidelines are not much help because their model is so different. For example, an article published in Nature asks the reader to trust the publisher (Springer), the editorial staff at Nature, the peer reviewers, the authors, and the institutions employing them. In contrast, Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Thus, we aren't asking our readers to trust the editors, who could be anyone. Rather, we're asking them to trust the cited sources.

Wikipedia counterintuitively has higher standards for citations because of their greater importance. Published citation guidelines permit to some extent what the APA calls nonrecoverable sources, such as personal emails or locally saved copies of dead links. Wikipedia largely does not. The guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources asks editors to "remove hopelessly-lost web-only sources" and treat the previously cited content "as unverified".

As of now, the solutions for handling content drift are largely undocumented. Frequently viewed policies like WP:V don't mention the issue. WP:CS somewhat alludes to it, by suggesting editors cite an access date for undated web content: ""Date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)""; that is also important for link rot, when URLs outright die.

The commonly used {{cite xxx}} templates and {{citation}} (the CS1 and CS2 style templates) offer a technical solution, but their documentation (like Template:Cite web/doc) is not frequently viewed, and discussions on the CS1 talk page show that even experienced editors feel confused. Essentially, adding an archive-url to a citation will automatically replace the live link with a frozen archived link. To prevent an editor from overriding this with url-status=live, you can preemptively add url-status=deviated. This has the same output as no url-status, or url-status=dead (which is helpful for soft 404 links that may appear to be active at first glance). Before working on better explanations, I have several questions that I don't know if there is a clear answer to:

1. What is the most practical approach when an editor comes across a citation someone else has added that has drifted away from its original content?
2. Where should the CS1/CS2 practical examples for how to handle this live? And how should editors get to them? I don't think the briefly-glossed parameters buried in the template documentation are enough.
3. To what extent should this be covered at Wikipedia:Link rot (with a new section and shortcut link)? That page gets about 200k annual views, and already covers much of the same ground.
4. To what extent should this be covered by a hypothetical separate essay yet to be written like Wikipedia:Content drift?
5. How should pages that do not deal with template parameters or any specific technical solutions explain this, if at all?
6. Should it be covered by any existing policies and guidelines?
7. In what cases should the article content drift with the drifting URL? (Sports for example?)

Also, for more context, feel free to read my notes or check out the conversation that inspired this between @Mathglot, Myceteae, and Neiglass at Talk:MV Hondius hantavirus outbreak § Verifiability problem with news articles labeled 'Live updates' Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this. One question, which I hope doesn't derail things. You mention prevent[ing] an editor from overriding the archive link with url-status=live. Is it generally accepted that it is preferable to prevent this? Wayback Machine links are often slow to load and may be missing some interactive content from the "real" URL. I almost always prefer the live link, assuming that there hasn't been any substantial content drift. I recognize that there are pitfalls to this, and that citations that lead with the archive link can include links to the original. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Myceteae, I don't think that derails things at all, and it's probably something the documentation could better explain. Perhaps I was unclear or the template is confusing, but that is exactly what |url-status=live does. It allows an editor to add an archived url to a citation while still keeping the citation's link pointed at the live URL. Removing |url-status=live, replacing it with |url-status=dead, or replacing it with |url-status=deviated all have the same effect on the templates' output. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess I read prevent an editor from overriding this as, possibly, a suggestion that this should be prevented, whereas I think leading with the "true" URL is preferable at least some of the time. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind. I was thinking this was intended as general guidance for archive links, not a specific situation where an editor comes across a citation that is already a 'victim' of content drift. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

This is great, so glad you started this. Although content drift is only a subset of all cited content that fails verification, I fear it is a larger subset than we are aware of. In particular, failed verification due to content drift has a very low, almost non-existent profile at Wikipedia and so can only benefit by shining a light on it. Your raw notes are a great snapshot of where things stand now at Wikipedia, and hopefully this section will kick-start the process of illumination.

A word about terminology: thanks for linking the LSE blog essay with the term content drift, which I was previously unaware of, but which is a good, memorable, and concise description. The term appears to have some currency now (search). (I had been thinking of the concept as "content rot" in my head.) It was also good to learn the term reference rot , which they use as a hypernym encompassing both link rot and content drift. (Another source uses digital decay instead for the combined term, but that seems less precise and is also used for other concepts such as data degradation.) Some of these terms could/should be added as shortcuts, initially pointing here, and in time, hopefully retargeted to a dedicated essay about the topic.

I will probably have lots to add at another time, but for the time being I just wanted to mention that there is a project at mw or meta somewhere that is attempting to build something to recognize unverified cited assertions. Can't recall what team but will link it when I find it; perhaps you know what I'm referring to. One of the things I worry about in connection with content drift of source urls cited at Wikipedia, is the sophistication required to recognize it, and the squirrely techniques required to fix it. This is where I hope the mw/meta project may perhaps help. It also occurs to me that something like this might be an excellent application of AI to benefit Wikipedia; whereas it is tedious and difficult to discover and fix deviated urls, AI ought to be pretty good at it.

But solutions are probably for down the road, when Toolforge or other resources here start providing ways to use AI as a tool. For where we are now, I am mostly interested in defining the problem, measuring it, and publicizing it in order to get more eyeballs and opinions on it. The solution(s) will probably evolve organically out of those discussions when the time is right. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• Listed at: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Mathglot (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Some initial feedback:

• Q3: (cover at LINKROT?): no, or hardly at all; mostly just a summary to a separate page. Too easy to confuse these.
• Q4: (cover separately): yes, at Wikipedia:Content drift (maybe shortcut CONTENTROT).

The two are related, but different in kind, almost opposite in their basic nature. Linkrot: (unarchived) url is gone, original verifying content may still exist at another url somewhere else: solution: find another url if possible and go link it instead. Content drift: verifying content is gone, (non-usurped) url still exists. Solution: find an archived copy that matches the deleted content (tricky to do!), use that instead. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree a separate essay would probably be helpful. Though it overlaps with content covered elsewhere, content drift is a distinct area of concern that would benefit from dedicated discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

1. Find an archive as close as possible to the access-date, check that the archive verified the content, and use |url-status=deviated so that only the rchived version shows in the reference. If the archived version fails verification, it shod be handled like any other verification failure, and if the link is completely unrecoverable then it should be handled as per any normal dead link.
2. Help:Citation Style 1 and WP:LINKROT
3. This should be covered in LINKROT as a separate section, a LINK would be helpful
4. I don't think I this requires a separate essay, it's something that requires explanation but it's not super critical.
5. If any other page needs to refer to this issue it should have a short explanation that links to the one of the pages already mentioned. We shouldn't duplicate explanations as that just means multiple pages have to be maintained if advice changes.
6. No. This is technical help, not policy or guidance.
7. This covers a couple of different topics. Statistical data where the sources diverges but Wikipedia requires the data at a set point ("In 2024 the ..."). Statistical data where the Wikipedia should update per the source ("In his career so far Hancock has scored.."). Only the first type is relevant to this issues, the other should be covered elsewhere.

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with Q3 that this is a subset of linkrot, which already includes in its lead "change their content". The relevant actions are similar (check archives, add archive link, adjust template if possible/necessary). Re Q7, that is very contextual, it is going to depend on the content in question and the website in question. With regards to the original example though, it is probably worth discouraging using "Live updates" type pages where possible. Such information is, by the very nature and purpose of such pages, recent and thus liable to be changed/updated as new information comes out. Preserving an archive to such content may be preserving outdated information. CMD (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

A comment that may be of use: not so much for content drift but for sources that are updated (rather than radically changed) frequently, such as number of cases of covid, and for things that are updated cumulatively, adding but not changing: I may or may not omit the |date= parameter from the template, and then append something like "Updated as required." after it. I don't know what wording I would use for a reference which I expect to be significantly changed (not just updated) in future. I also sometimes misuse |orig-date= as it allows free text (|orig-date=some text associated with 25 December 2025), though maybe this, though useful for a reader, might be problematical for Wikipedia. HTH, Pol098 (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

• Content Drift is an old phrase. What is means is contextual. In the classic sense a page still works but the content has changed. An example would be weather stats, sports scores, billboard charts, stock price information. In a more expansive sense, the content has moved to a new URL and there is no redirect. So you figure out the new URL scheme/rules and apply it across all URLs. That's what I do at WP:URLREQ. Web properties undergo CMS (Content Management System) changes on a frequent basis. Unless we want a Wikipedia museum of dead links, there needs to be a way to keep up with these changes that can scale (I do not scale). The bot to do this work is over 35,000 lines of Nim code in development for 11 years and requires 5 VMs, it is non-trivial and the limiting factor is every domain requires bespoke coding and significant time to process. -- GreenC 05:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

  • "Content Drift is an old phrase. What is means is contextual." Does it seem the best title for this issue (if an essay is written), or is there something else that would make more sense?
  • "In the classic sense a page still works but the content has changed. An example would be weather stats, sports scores, billboard charts, stock price information." Do you have any ideas for a more automated solution to catch these?
  • "In a more expansive sense, the content has moved to a new URL and there is no redirect. So you figure out the new URL scheme/rules and apply it across all URLs. That's what I do at WP:URLREQ." Are there any ways that citations should be formatted to make that work more streamlined for you?
  • "Web properties undergo CMS (Content Management System) changes on a frequent basis. Unless we want a Wikipedia museum of dead links, there needs to be a way to keep up with these changes that can scale (I do not scale). The bot to do this work is over 35,000 lines of Nim code in development for 11 years and requires 5 VMs, it is non-trivial and the limiting factor is every domain requires bespoke coding and significant time to process." Sounds like a lot. Are there things other editors can do to support this effort? Within this conversation, that mostly comes down to documentation and citation formatting, but I suppose I also mean in general. I think I remember you talking about how the WMDE implementation of sub-references was incompatible with a bot you had been working on.

  Also, thanks for giving your perspective here, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

• May I ask how content drift is handled (if at all) in non-online sources? In a newer edition of a print book, for example, or in a later edition of a print newspaper article? In a later re-edited version of a creative work in physical media? I believe some of GreenC comments above apply to non-online sources too. Should there be uniformity in the way this is addressed? ~2026-31992-84 (talk) 13:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  The issue is much more prevalent with online sources because of their very nature. Content can be changed or moved with the a few keystrokes and the old content is replaced entirely and immediately. Online sources are also more commonly used on Wikipedia, due to their sheer volume and accessibility. For books, the edition and other publication information can be recorded directly as part of the citation. Other types of offline sources can have various distinguishing features of their own that can be included in the citation. Of course, editors don't always record this information and problems can arise when one editor is trying to verify a source using a different edition than the one originally cited by a different editor. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

  This is the same anonymous editor but with different temp account.

Offline sources were brought up in the previous post to enquire if a unified approach to drift should be taken, for both online and offline sources. Keeping in mind that online sources may republish/reprint offline sources. Online sources may drift more frequently, but when an underlying offline source changes it may cause many different online sources to drift.

Maybe also a better delineation is required between content drift and link drift (of which link rot is a subset). Stability of the entire citation, including the content (as provided in e.g. |title=) and the link (e.g. in |url= or some other location identifier) is necessary for verifiability. Stability is also pertinent regarding reliability of the source (obviously a source that frequently corrects itself is unprofessional and unreliable), but that is a different subject. IIRC, the rationale behind adding the existing markers for content and link drift in mainspace was their then-presumed short lifespan: the affected citations were supposed to be soon corrected, re-written or removed.

There may also be cases where the "drift" provides higher quality content, but renders the previously supported wikitext claim unverifiable. ~2026-32206-23 (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Offline sources were brought up in the previous post to enquire if a unified approach to drift should be taken, for both online and offline sources. I suppose it depends on what level of the approach we are referring to. Part of the approach to online sources involves finding a suitable archive link, for example. My read of this discussion is that the focus is online content but this is an extension of or related to broader verifiability issues. If a citation to a book or print newspaper cannot be verified then the content may ultimately have to be removed but determining that a link is dead or that the content has been updated is more straightforward than determining definitively that a print source is fails verifiability or is inaccessible. I don't mean to be obtuse, just trying to understand what you are getting at. I am probably not the best equipped to answer this but I am interested in the discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Currently, WP:V permits editors to add unsourced content. This is a remnant of the Wikipedia of decades ago, not the Wikipedia of today, where editors who habitually add unsourced content will typically be shown the door, and where unsourced content is seen as a cleanup problem that needs to be addressed.

It's time to update V to require that all content not merely be verifiable to sources, but to be verifiable to sources in the article. I propose two changes to do this. In the lede, change Each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable. to Each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable to sources in the article. In WP:BURDEN, change 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. to A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it is cited.

This will reflect existing practice and will make it clearer for new editors what our expectations are, rather than expecting them to figure out that we say one thing but mean another. BilledMammal (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Remember what I was saying on the other page about proposals to strengthen sourcing requirements fail due to overreach? This is an example of that.

You are proposing to change the very definition of what it means for a fact to be verifiable. That's a huge change. Policies, like community practice, evolve by baby steps. Try something like "Every article needs to contain at least one source". Copy the wording currently used for WP:BLPPROD. Don't lard any extra stuff on to the side of it, and don't tell anyone what your future hopes for maximizing citation density are. Just keep it short and simple, and you'll at least have a chance of getting a change to this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

It will change very little, as in practice we already require that all statements are verified in the article. It also won't lead to us deleting every unverified statement; the guidance about how to deal with unverified statements will remain as it currently is, encouraging the addition of sources or the addition of cleanup templates.

All it will do it update policy to reflect practice, and address one of the main issues that our policies have for new editors - that they say one thing, but mean another. BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

as in practice we already require that all statements are verified in the article Given that there are regularly sentences added to Wikipedia every day that aren't verified by sources in the article, how is this codifying existing practice? Katzrockso (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The claim that in practice we already require that all statements are verified in the article is not true. The lead of the Wikipedia:No original research policy even gives an example of a statement that it explicitly says is not required to have an inline citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think I'd lean toward supporting this change...but WAID isn't wrong that it's a pretty significant paradigm shift, and I suspect you're going to face an uphill battle getting a consensus in favor of it. Good luck! DonIago (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Non starter, because then we replace SKYISBLUE problems with a stranglehold on new article creation or expansion. Not kidding, I have been informed that my Wikipedia-style incessant citation habits are overkill for academic writing. Whoops. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

That's likely as many in academia expect citations to be used to build support for original research, rather than be the main focus. It seems highly unlikely there would be a SKYISBLUE stranglehold on new article creation or expansion, as those processes already expect good sourcing. Trying to think of common SKYISBLUE exceptions, one might be extrapolating geography (eg. attaching a country name to a state name, even if the country is not mentioned), but that usually comes with a citation for the local area so it isn't unsourced. In some cases, there is the usual lack of enforcement around pronunciations and non-English names. Perhaps some extrapolation of nationalities? CMD (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

As it stands any challenged content must be referenced with, and not restored without, an inline citation. So any editor with concerns about unverifiable content already has a strong policy backing, the question is do they need more. Personally I'd like to see Wikipedia moving to inline citation being the norm, it's what the readers expect and helps boost credibility (whether readers check them or not). Standardisation (not just in this matter) would also make the learning experience of new editors a lot easier. However I don't see this proposal being accepted. I also worry that the suggested language would exasperate the situation where some editors think something is unverifiable because the source doesn't match the article content word for word. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:07, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Which makes this feel the better way to handle this is through behavior rather than policy. An editor that continues to add unsourced content without making attempts to source it after being cautioned about WP:V is being disruptive. It would feel that trying to change WP:V from what it is now would create a mess of enforcement problems. Masem (t) 13:33, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The context for this is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Proving notability in which the OP is trying to find a policy basis for overturning WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. WP:V apparently seemed like a hopeful candidate, especially if you apply an Infinite monkey theorem to WP:V's rule about content that is Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged.

Maybe we should consider adding a statement like "For reference, editors estimate that less than 10% of content actually gets challenged, so mathematically, most content is unlikely to get challenged"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Deleting content for which proper sources exist but have not yet been added to the article is putting worship of policy over improvement of the encyclopedia. The more appropriate reaction to being upset about sources not having been added is to fix it, not to demand that other editors do the work for you on penalty of deletion. Requesting sources can be a reasonable thing to do, but mainly in cases where you have a reasonable suspicion that the sources might not exist. When you know they do, you also know what to do to fix it. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you in principle, but I also believe that there are a few editors in the community who have done the math and determined that they can get articles deleted faster than they can add sources to them, and so they see deletion, and the threat of deletion, as both a righteous end itself (readers will be protected from "bad" articles) and also as a force multiplier (because other editors will drop all the other work to prevent deletion of articles about notable subjects, so instead of "just me" adding sources, it's now Alice and Bob and Chris and David adding sources [but not me, because that was so effective that I'm going to spend my time threatening another set of articles, to get Eve and Frank and George busy adding sources to some other articles]). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Most V issue tend to come down to behavioural issues. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:35, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a sweeping change proposed for insufficient reasons. I am far from convinced that new editors are actually confused to a serious extent about this, or that common practice is, in practice, out of line with the current phrasing. What people appear to need more help understanding is that not everything you can find on the Internet is reliable. New editors add "sources" that end up being press releases, SEO slop, etc. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

And also the other way around: A source will be perfectly reliable in context, but someone will remove it because press releases are never reliable, etc.

I don't think the community is ready to have a rule that says articles can be deleted if they're "insufficiently sourced", by which some editors mean that there isn't a citation after every sentence, and citations to certain kinds of sources don't count. We might be ready to expand the WP:BLPPROD rules to all articles.

If newcomers are confused, it's probably because immediatist–citation-maximalist editors assert that "policy requires" full citation, and when they look at other articles, they discover that this alleged policy is not enforced, and if they ask here, they are told that the alleged rule doesn't exist. IMO the solution is for the pro-citation editors to stop saying "policy requires" (because that appeal to the law is not true) and instead say "it's best" or "it's important" (because it is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

New editors are confused because Wikipedia doesn't have a way of doing things, instead it has many different ways. This leads to a learning curve that is a cliff. You can have a personal opinion on what the best way would be, but they're not confused by one particular way or another rather than all those ways are the 'right' way. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

That's very true. I've been Wikipediaing for years, and I've been continually surprised by how many things I thought were rules are actually just... suggestions that are written to strongly imply they are rules, without actually technically claiming to be so. I often wonder how Wikipedia conventions got settled at all, given that everybody seems to have a different idea for the reasons that underlie them. Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• I've just written a (blissfully infobox-free) article. If this proposal had been the rule, then I wouldn't have bothered, as the sheer labour involved in sourcing and defending it would have prevented me. If anyone wants more sources, then it's up to them to specify the sentence or paragraph which they say is undersourced. And that's as it should be.
  But, I have the autopatrolled flag so I get to bypass NPP. That means my experience of writing articles is fundamentally unlike most other people's. If I didn't have that flag, then I would expect a NPP patroller or AFC reviewer to interrogate my sources fairly closely before they approved that article for mainspace. (They might have some trouble, considering that I've put together an article about a concept, from sources that are about procedures.)
  Counterproposal:

  With effect from %futuredate, for articles within the scope of CTOPs, or for all BLPs, any edit that introduces a new fact or claim into an article must have an inline citation.

  How's that?—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  No. Unenforceable and overbroad. And likely to be misinterpreted as requiring the addition of a new citation rather than allowing reuse of existing ones. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that's likely (i.e., someone might make that claim, but they'll get shouted down pretty quickly). I think that more likely problems are:

  • It's not actually a "new" fact or claim, but the reviewer didn't notice that the information being summarized is already cited elsewhere on the page.
  • "all BLPs" will be taken by some editors to mean "only biographies, narrowly defined, so that it includes Cher but not Cultural impact of Cher" and others will take it to mean "any material covered by the BLP policy, including obviously non-BLP articles like Volcanic eruption and Death of a Salesman and White cake, if they ever happen to mention any living people".

  I also think that these problems could be handled with a footnote.

  On that first bullet point, it might be a good idea to get the "one cite per fact/claim per article is enough" into this article, though it's not true for especially contentious BLP matter, and we should talk about whether duplicate citations are desirable if a direct quotation is repeated (fairly uncommon, especially outside of WP:PLOTSUM situations, such as the lines in a poem or the lyrics for a song). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  Where there's dispute, an article is a BLP if it's in Category:Living people.—S Marshall T/C 08:45, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  So:

  With effect from %futuredate, for articles within the scope of CTOPs, or for any article in Category:Living people, any edit that introduces a new fact or claim into an article must have an inline citation.

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  An excellent idea Marshall, in my opinion. But then, as you know, I am in the "over-protective" camp regarding quality and verifiability. I am sure some people will object, but we must push to strengthen the requirements for adding junk at will and worrying about it later. That was the motto 20 years ago and at the time "text bulimia" was not only overlooked but encouraged. But now we have an encyclopedia that mimics Gérard Depardieu and things must change. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

• There are two sides to this: 1) When you are adding stuff to an article - if there is any doubt about whether to include a citation, do so. 2) When you are reading or reviewing an article - if there is any doubt, don’t be a dick about it. Consider tagging rather than removing. And if YOU can add a source, even better! Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

  I think we've made progress over the years on your point #1, by losing ground on your point #2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• I am opposed to this change. Verifiability has always meant that something is, well, verifiable. This is deliberately a low threshold, and only depends on whether reliable sourcing exists. Other policies and guidelines then address when citations are required, what kinds of sources are reliable, how citations should be placed, and what material belongs in the article. This proposal would make WP:V do too much work, and would risk turning a basic inclusion threshold into a general article-cleanup or citation-density rule. Sławomir Biały (talk) 08:58, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Billed, I agree with your sentiment, but know that you will face opposition. I suggest a softer approach that would have a chance of success. In my view it is far too easy to add junk to articles, and not enough editors to monitor things. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the idea is good. I think the proposed phrasing is confusing. I also think we shouldn't change what "verifiable" means (unless that gets changed around all the time on Wikipedia unbeknownst to me), and should instead invent a new term for the new requirements and refer everything to that. I think the new requirement is a plausible use of the English word "verifiable" but Wikipedia has its own entrenched technical terms (or are they?). Dingolover6969 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

We avoid changing the meaning of words, thought semantic drift affects communication on Wikipedia in the same way that it affects any other communication between humans. Some words don't officially have a definition (e.g., "reliable source"), and others have multiple official definitions (e.g., WP:SOURCE). The Wikipedia:Glossary might be interesting to look through some time (or Wikipedia:WikiSpeak, if you're looking for a more cynical version). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

By the way, there is a discussion on Village pump idea lab about adding master theses, which may be related to verifiability. I made a few comments, then stopped. You people may want to comment there. Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Shadow libraries, such as Anna's Archive, Library Genesis, Sci-Hub, and Z-Library all face the same problem: they have to regularly pop up on new domains when their previous ones were taken down. Editors are disagreeing on how these domains should be cited (see the {{cn}} tags and talk page discussions). Some cited the site itself, but there has been a history of scam sites appearing. Some support citing non-reliable sites like SLUM, or sites of questionable reliability like Verts-Luisants. Some recommended citing reliable sources (such as TorrentFreak), but they may be slow to report on domain changes, or they might not report on them at all. Considering these, some have proposed not including URLs at all.

It must be noted that some of these sites regularly refer people to their Wikipedia articles for the currently active domains (LibGen AA), while others list the currently active domains on their subreddits' wiki (Sci-Hub ZLib). Kovcszaln6 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

@Kovcszaln6, is this discussion about verifying article content (e.g., using citation templates and ref tags), or is this about whether to put the domain name in the infobox (which is a question for WP:ELOFFICIAL)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe there is consensus not to exclude the domains on the grounds of copyright violation. The main question is what source should we cite for the domains (or is it better to not include them at all). Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. My question is whether you're discussing:

1. whether there should be {{infobox website |website=https://example.com}} at the top of the article, or
2. whether the middle of the article should have a little blue number that looks like ^[1] and which, if you click on it, should say something like "Anna's Archive" in the ==References== section, or
3. both.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

The question is should the infobox include the domains, and if yes, should there be a citation verifying them, and if yes, what source should we cite. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

In general we do not cite sources for external links, whether in an external links section or in the home page line of an infobox. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

So are the citation needed tags in the infoboxes invalid or would this be an exception where sourcing is expected for external links? Kovcszaln6 (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Citations are never expected for Wikipedia:External links. This might be a case for which doing the unexpected is warranted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Doing the unexpected might be warranted, and it doesn't seem costly. I think that an endnote, which explains how and why the domain names are not stable, would be more informative than an ordinary plain blue clicky number. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I posted a question regarding self-published sources at the talk page for WP:RS here: . Since this page uses the exact same wording at WP:ABOUTSELF, this is relevant here as well. I suggest to keep the discussion there, however. NisJørgensen (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

This topic now has a focused discussion page: User:Zlamma/Rfc:WP_docs_improvement_re_demonstrations where the remaining points are summarized and are being discussed.

It seems to me an omission of this Verifiability article, that it doesn't mention any possibility of creating original work that attempts to provide a better demonstration of some propositions which are otherwise well sourced.

Image use policy clearly does allow original demonstrations in "user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should primarily serve an educational purpose" [Image use policy > Diagrams and other images], but this problem applies not only to images, but to any media, including audio, where it has lead to questioning of the demonstrations of audible phenomenon (e.g. Just intonation's "citation needed" template, relevant Talk discussion, citing Verifiability as forbidding original demonstrations, but only ones published elsewhere).

I want to make clear that I am not looking for a total permissiveness for any user-made demonstrations - I do recognize that demonstrations should unconditionally have verifiability information for the basic claims that the work is trying to demonstrate and those that lack it are due for improvement in this regard, or even removal.

It seems however that correctness of demonstrations is a separate issue altogether. Admittedly, it is not without its own pitfalls. Some demonstrations' correctness is easier to verify just by just observing them (e.g. geometry's Pythagoreas theorem animation) whereas some works, in their present format, are complex enough to be able to stealthily propagate wrong knowledge (e.g. for acoustic phenomenon wrong sine waves problem) and definitely require addressing eventually (ideas of solutions).

But it seems to me that it would be very detrimental to Wikipedia if the only demonstrative works allowed were those almost identical to versions published elsewhere, especially that it pushes the platform away from providing user value through best explanations, fully utilizing Wikipedia's digital nature, and presses it towards self-inflicted copyright infringement hell.

Having this in mind, is there any chance that any hint of the distinction is drawn in the Wikipedia's verifiability rules? Zlamma (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

• The interesting aspects of just intonation and 12 equal temperament reduce to understanding ratios, which is mathematically trivial and falls within WP:CALC.
  We allow user-generated files. In biographies, it's quite normal for Wikipedians to upload their photographs of the person; in articles about places, it's quite normal for Wikipedians to upload their photographs of the place. And for example, I personally drew all the site plans in Ness of Brodgar.
  In my view you do not need a source for those files, and the user who says otherwise is mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for your opinion. The "WP:NOR > What is not original research" seems to indeed be tackling the very matter, including non-image media.

  What I am hoping in this topic is for WP:V to also help discover what the boundaries to the rule are, to avoid overzealous actions. Perhaps it should have a section akin to "What is not an infringement of Verifiability", even if it just links to the relevant sections in other rules? Zlamma (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  WP:V and WP:NOR are basically the same. NOR says you can't put new, previously unpublished ideas in Wikipedia. WP:V says that things in Wikipedia must have been published in a reliable source (and that some things are required to be WP:CITED, though not necessarily by any particular WP:DEADLINE). If something is acceptable under NOR, it's probably also acceptable under WP:V.

  Glancing briefly at the discussion at Talk:Just intonation, it appears that what's needed is more attention on the "in such cases" phrase. Someone might be interpreting that as "in all cases". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks @WhatamIdoing. It is likely true that that user here likely missed the conditional premise in WP:IUP that was making the requirement apply just to cases of 'user-made version of a presentation that is copyrighted', but it was me who brought WP:IUP to the discussion, whereas earlier the user pointed at just WP:V as justification to the arguments (1, 2) and to edits that removed some contributions. I do feel that especially certain strong verbiage of WP:V suggests that there are no exception to the "provide reliable-source" rule, and it's not immediately clear from WP:V that "WP:V and WP:NOR are basically the same", especially to the exceptions in WP:NOR, so I feel this could use addressing. Zlamma (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Images (and related media) are supposed to be illustrating what's already cited in the text. Therefore they do not need separate sources as a general rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

  Again. I don't see WP:V mentioning any guideline for this case, so I feel this is something that could be improved.

  (That is whichever way the matter is decided, as some users see the problem with demonstrations-complexity exhibiting full spectrum, including cases where verifiability is borderline-impossible with the current state of tooling. I would not mind there being at least encouragement of the users to prefer open-source demonstrations, original files in the editor-software format, or prose giving the recipe for the creation.) Zlamma (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I had a discussion with Trumpetrep about this on my talk page after he came to me for advice; I invite interested parties to see our comments at User talk:UpTheOctave! § Audio files, since I will only summarise them here. While I seem to have reached broadly the same conclusion as the users here that sources are not required in the article, and that the maths behind the needed calculations is routine, I do think Trumpetrep's argument has some merit. This is genuinely a grey area: the image use policy is expressly for images, so while analogies can be drawn, I'd be wary at saying whether certain passages definitively apply to audio files.

I'd like to shift the focus slightly, as my concern is not the lack of a source for audio files, but the current, opaque nature of most file descriptions. WP:WHYCITE makes it clear that for an image or other media file, details of its origin and copyright status should appear on its file page. My reading of this is that we already require a provenance for each file in some level of detail, but it's just not enforced. Looking at examples like File:A Major Scale, Triads, and Fifths Just.ogg and File:A Major Scale, Triads, and Fifths Equal.ogg, most of these audio files simply give a description of what they are, and not information on how they were created (i.e. their origin). They may well be what they purport to be, but any mistakes are very hard to find without any indication of how they were produced. As such, I think it might be worth considering drafting some guidance on how to write good file descriptions for audio demonstrations. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:44, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Images are not audio files.

Most of the cited precedents here are from Wikipedia's policy on images. The DIY ethos of those guidelines is clear enough. Images and audio files might seem closely related, but audio files present different problems.

User:S Marshall cited the Routine calculations policy, which also might seem to solve the problem. However, the policy specifies much simpler calculations than ratios, "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible."

Note in particular the closing admonition, "Comparisons of statistics present particular difficulties." Guess what has also presented particular difficulties over thousands of years of human civilization: the mathematics of just intonation.

The File:A Major Scale, Triads, and Fifths Just.ogg file is an example of the problem. Simply saying the file is "just" is akin to ordering a "sandwich" at McDonald's and leaving it at that. There are too many different formulations of just intonation to not go into more detail for our target audience, which is the general reader.

User:UpTheOctave! is on the more productive track here, which is how to ensure that any audio file used in an article is accurate. Requiring editors to precisely document how the files were created seems reasonable. Doing so invites the kind of peer review process that seems out of bounds for Wikipedia, but it's better than nothing.

I would also encourage guidelines about when user-generated audio demonstrations can be used, and Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia if those guidelines were extremely narrow. Trumpetrep (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it does say "Comparison of statistics present particular difficulties", because I wrote that. A marketer or POV pusher has an incentive to compare dissimilar statistics -- ones that derive from different areas, or different time periods, or from studies that used different methodologies -- in order to draw you towards the conclusion they desire you to reach.

Audio files containing only pitch comparisons are fundamentally dissimilar. Nobody is trying to sell anything or win an election based on such a file.

We don't require editors to document how they generated a file and we have no plans to start.

What we don't want is a problem that looks like this:

Anne: This is a diagram of a right angle triangle.

Bob: Prove it!

Anne: Look, it's got a right angle at the bottom left corner. See? It's got three straight sides. It's a right angle triangle.

Bob: Only if you drew it on a flat surface. Did you?

Anne: Yes.

Bob: Prove it! Or I'm deleting your image.

Anne: Okay, whatever. (Gives up encyclopaedia writing and goes away forever.)

Bob: Yay, I win! The badwrong image can never be used to mislead people, and the badwrong person is gone!

In this scenario Anne is in the right and Bob is the problem.

NB: We use media files from Wikimedia Commons so this isn't even entirely up to us. It's also a Commons issue.—S Marshall T/C 07:33, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

The scenario you described played out recently with this image that claimed to be an E 9th chord. It was created for and used for years as the lead image at Nashville tuning. It was absolutely incorrect. Not only did it not depict an E 9th, but it was not an accurate notation of Nashville tuning. The picture has now been replaced by a user-generated image with two citations that readers and editors can check to verify its accuracy.

As for POV pushing not being a problem in music theory, the Talk page at the recently redirected "Regular temperament" article offers a window into just how much of a problem bias can be in the topic.

And again, audio files are not images. Wikipedia should have a specific policy for audio files, because they are an entirely different medium.

Returning to the Routine calculations policy, the section is immediately followed by a reminder of Wikipedia's first principle:

"Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. The policy says that all challenged or likely to be challenged material and all quotations need a reliable source..."

Why would Wikipedia abandon this requirement when it comes to audio files? Trumpetrep (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

Not to pour any of the Anne & Bob babies with the bath, I still feel an improvement to the guidelines could help (I remind that the topic's thread is whether any improvement to the guideline is warranted. While I think both sides' concerns are valid, I would suggest to make it clear when there is no contention to coming up with some guideline improvement):

On the one hand, there could be a recognition and a reminder that some verifiability problems are not down to lack of citations, so citation-needed are the wrong templates to use (even when there's a citation, because of the need to avoid copyright-infringement like described in this case, the demonstration can still be wrong and unverifiable). Additionally, when the demonstration's correctness is doubted, the challenger should first consider whether the intent to provide a demonstration was helpful. If so, the course of action should not be outright edit reversals and mostly discouragement, but rather an encouragement to improve the demonstration, to allow verification for correctness.

On the other hand, there could readily be a guideline with encouragement of the users to prefer open-source demonstrations, original files in the editor-software format, or at least providing prose giving the recipe for the creation (a template could help, both in Wikipedia, but I feel that one for Commons could be even more effective, explaining that following the guidelines would be very valuable for the encyclopedic use of the work). Zlamma (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@S Marshall: I get what you're saying, but I don't think that's an entirely fair representation of the argument. No-one's saying that file creators would be forced to prove they did what they say they did: as you imply with the Anne–Bob argument, that would be unreasonable as a violation of WP:AGF. All we're saying is that to avoid the issues with these black box-like file descriptions, which from Trumpetrep's examples are a real problem, we should consider encouraging better file descriptions locally. Since a lot of files on Commons are destined for the English Wikipedia anyways, and it would be here that they are actually embedded, I don't think we are overshooting our jurisdiction if we pursue local guidance. In reply to your comment, we don't require editors to document how they generated a file and we have no plans to start: with the Anne–Bob issue sidestepped, my question is, why not? Better file descriptions don't just serve verifiability in the abstract, they make errors findable and fixable, which is especially important since audio errors can fall below the threshold of epistemic detection (see just-noticeable difference). UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:29, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

User:UpTheOctave!'s admirable invocation of epistemic detection cuts to the heart of what I've been hinting at when I stressed that audio files present different issues from images. (I didn't want to get distracted with technicalities.)

S Marshall's diagrams at Ness of Brodgar are supported by a citation. Other editors can see where he got the information for the images he created. That practice comports with Wikipedia's core concept of verifiability. It seems reasonable to ask the same of user-generated audio.

There are only a few of us participating here, but three of us seem to agree that a guideline about audio demonstrations would be worthwhile. What's the process for doing that? Do we just hash out language here or take it to some broader forum? Forgive my ignorance about Wikipedia's internal processes. Trumpetrep (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trumpetrep this would be something you'd want to float at the Village pub. (proposals) if you're getting input on a draft proposal, (policy) if you feel that that draft is ready for community consensus yea or nay. If it's at policy, you want to frame it as an RfC.----3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 16:35, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

@Trumpetrep, in my mind this problem isn't specific to audio-files, but rather applies to other complex works where only the output of the black box is published. We all did seem to agree here in Talk:Just intonation that this dilemma may appear even for images, when they are complex enough (there is more that images can erroneously claim than just right angles :) ).

I feel that the just-noticeable-difference realm is not the essence of the content that is problematic, but a broader category of content form which is more complex to analyze cognitively than practically feasible. Even if one can't perceive the difference between just-intonation and TET, there are forms of providing an audio demonstration which one can verify and those that would be very hard.

This is the reason I saw it pertinent to raise the discussion here. I also feel that, by not trying to create a prescription for specific medium (though by all means audio can be listed as example), it will be easier to create something that mostly just shows correspondence with the already existing first-principles of Wikipedia. Zlamma (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with everything you are saying. So, what's the logical next step? Trumpetrep (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding formalities, I myself am quite ignorant here, but I only found what 3family6 had in mind: Wikipedia:Village pump.

Judging by W:VP (proposals) being described there as 'non policy related', I suppose the right place for discussing a draft of changes would more likely be just W:VP (idea lab), and in case of approval, submitting to W:VP (policy).

Regarding producing some draft/scaffold of the text, if it is helpful for me to produce something, I think at some point in the week I may find a moment. If someone readily feels under the muse, my quick share of thought for how I would see it is that I wish the text at least reflected what I wrote above , especially about reminding both sides to take good faith efforts to avoid any of the two extremes.

Same regarding my point that "citation needed" is not always the right template to use. Here, my ideation about template(s) for this case is probably a bit wishful but, in either case, I feel WP:V does need some text giving discoverability of what the best "template of behavior" is rather warranted. Ifeel that WP:V is currently a bit blind to the facts that 'publication' and 'citations' for verifiability is neither always necessary (as per WP:NOR > What is not original research and W:IUP#Diagrams) nor sufficient (as per "even when there's a citation, because of the need to avoid copyright-infringement like described in this case, the demonstration can still be wrong and unverifiable").

To anyone else in this topic, you may have and idea for a different course of action or choice of words into words, and I'm also happy to just assist.

In either case, any feedback, both encouraging and principled-discouraging is appreciated! Zlamma (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

A late 2c: There needs to be space in policy for simple demonstrations of concepts such as the ones described here that are not merely copies of the same demonstrations from copyrighted material (which would likely be a copyright and fair use policy violation), because if we make our sourcing requirements so strict as to prevent those demonstrations we would likely be left with no demonstrations at all. I have in mind, for instance, the lead image of Featured Article Euclidean algorithm, which provides a graphical demonstration of a specific instance of the algorithm. If it merely copied the numbers and graphical appearance from a textbook, it would be a copyvio problem, but if our sourcing rules were tightened so much as to prevent us from using demonstrations like this unless they were copied wholesale from textbooks, it would also present a Catch 22 for article content preventing us from including any such demonstrations at all. Maybe in this specific case we are saved by WP:CALC but I am not sure that is true more generally for the types of demonstrations under discussion here, and I am also not convinced that even WP:CALC is safe from well-meaning but poorly thought out "let's improve our sourcing and verifiability requirements" proposals. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I completely agree with regards to requiring a source for every demonstration; I think others have mostly moved on from that original proposal as well. Would you mind if I pick your brain on the alternative suggestion of pursuing better documentation for how these demonstrations are created? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Media files and verifiability

Wanting to unpack this and take a close look the principles that underlie verifiability as it applies to media files.

Per policy, verifiability applies to facts and claims. Media files can be used to support various different facts or claims.

Where verifiability comes in

Here is an example of some information.

This information isn't making a fact or claim, and therefore verifiability doesn't apply to it.

Here is the same information with a fact or claim. I've highlighted the part where verifiability comes in.

• This is Beethoven's 5th Symphony.

But let's imagine that I use the same information to support other claims.

• This is a musical phrase in C minor.
• This is information that's out of copyright.
• This is wikicode that automatically generates a media file.
• This shows how tuplets are written in musical notation.
• This is the mating call of a wild piano.

Each one of those needs to be separately evaluated for verifiability. Having a source for one claim doesn't verify any others.

Also note that if someone breaks or rewrites the score extension, the way that information looks or sounds will change.

Media files and Commons

Now let's take the case of a file that's hosted on Wikimedia Commons. These files are usable on Wikipedia per policy, but not within our control. (Over there on the right ---->)

Someone on Wikimedia Commons could replace this file. This affects the accuracy of the information, and is not within our control or the control of anyone on en.wiki. We don't get to make rules about that.

The claim that "This is the Eiffel Tower" is one you can check, but you have to use your eyes and your knowledge (or a personal visit to Paris). You can't check it with a citation.

"How did you produce that?"

Let's now imagine, hypothetically, that I produce media files demonstrating just intonation vs 12 equal temperament. You challenge me to explain how I produced it. Here are some examples of answers I could give you.

• It's raw sine waves, tuned and played using Audacity.
• It's a real guitar, tuned by ear and played into a microphone.
• It's a sample of a violin, pitch-shifted in Ableton.
• I generated them by typing the frequencies into onlinetonegenerator.com.

You can't check a single one of those claims with a citation. You can only test them with your ears and your knowledge.

This is quite separate from WP:V. Verifiability is about making sure anyone can check a fact or claim, i.e. without any specialist knowledge.—S Marshall T/C 09:44, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Quibble… Verifiability is about making sure that someone (not necessarily you) can check without having specialist knowledge.

There are many things that I can not personally check (a book in a language I don’t speak, for example) - but since I can ask others to check on my behalf, they are verifiable. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, quibble acknowledged; but I feel it's, at best, tangential to this matter. Someone with the right equipment might be able to verify a claim like "this is a sine wave at 440 hertz". Nobody but the uploader can verify how a sine wave at 440 hertz was produced because there are so many ways to do it.—S Marshall T/C 12:23, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

@S Marshall. Thanks for your response. Could you clarify one thing missing for me? I'm unsure whether you argue against always requiring a form of reproduction steps (source code, editor file or prose), which I feel most here find too extreme, or whether you against even encouraging them for at least some cases, or whether you argue against any initiative to change the WP:V text, even to just remind of the notable distinction and record the consensus.

Second thing which I feel underpins a difference in which w look at the matter is, re:

"I generated them by typing the frequencies into onlinetonegenerator.com. You can't check a single one of those claims with a citation. ... Verifiability is about making sure anyone can check a fact or claim."

If a different generator was described that allows downloads, and whose files produced are deterministic (I think I found one on audiocheck.net), then to me, using simple file contents comparison "anyone can check a ... claim" about what the file contains (the claim that someone use that website is surely uninteresting for anyone). An even better version of the commons file would be one that provides source code. The discussion is about whether, in order not to limit how high quality Wikipedia can ever become, it shouldn't provide encouragements to provide these types of verifiability. Zlamma (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Those are quite specific questions!

You asked: Do I argue against always requiring a form of reproduction steps? Yes I do. An editor might download a CC0 sound file from someone's blog, and then upload it to Wikimedia Commons. Then the blog goes poof and nobody knows how the sound file was produced, and the editor who uploaded it vanishes. But it's a legitimate sound file that should still be usable.

You didn't ask: Do I argue against encouraging editors to explain how they produced a file? If you'd asked me that, I would have no objection.

You asked: Do I argue against any initiative to change the WP:V text? At this stage, yes I do. If after consulting Wikipedia:Village pump/Policy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound production it's clear that the consensus is against me, then I might withdraw that objection.

You didn't ask: Is WP:V the right rule to edit in this situation? If you'd asked me that, then I would say that the right rule to edit in the first instance is Help:Creation and usage of media files#Audio.—S Marshall T/C 12:49, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Re source code: some of the mathematical images that I have uploaded to commons were generated by a script that I wrote, whose source code I have uploaded to the commons description page (example). Others were drawn by me by hand using a graphical user interface, most frequently in Adobe Illustrator (example) or, occasionally, they include a combination of programmatic generation and hand touchup. It might be possible for a knowledgeable reader to look at the source code and verify that it is generating what the image claims to be about, but I think in most cases it is far easier to look at the image. I don't think stating how an image is generated, in these cases, is very helpful for verifiability. It may be helpful for other reasons (for instance to generate variations of the image) but that is not about verifiability.

Incidentally, in the case of the programmatic example above, what needs to be verified is that the image has the same geometric features in roughly the same positions as the original image by Catalan that it copies. This is not something one can verify by looking at the code. And the positions are not exactly the same. In this case, the geometry is exact, but that is also not always needed. I have seen arguments that for some editions of Euclid's Elements the geometry of the illustrations is deliberately inexact, not so much because of the limitations of the person creating them but because an inexact illustration forces the reader to pay attention to the mathematical arguments and not to rely too much on their visual intuition. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel as if mathematics is a special case, in terms of WP:V.

I feel as if a well-formulated mathematical equation, or a well-written computer program, is self-verifying (if it has a unique solution). Maybe not to Randy from Boise, but to a David Eppstein or a Charles Matthews, to i.e. to someone who "speaks maths", a valid mathematical proof is self-verifying.

This is really important in maths because the topic area benefits so much from worked examples, and because you can't just copy/paste a worked example from a textbook without violating copyright.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, mathematics may be special in a sense but there was a very long discussion about cartography a month or two ago on RSN. It is more complicated than math diagrams. User Geosage was the only one who understood the field there. So the special list may be longer than appears. As for "speaking math" the issue of dialects is serious. I am certain that there are topics that Eppstein knows better than Matthews and also the other way around. Do either of them know the recent issues in fluid dynamics? Anybody's guess. So if someone adds a diagram on that who checks it? Relativistic gravity? Quantum computing theory? Does David Deutch edit here? The list of topics can be quite long. Overall, I do not see a clear solution yet. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Twenty years ago when machine translations were ghastly unreliable, Wikipedians managed to agree that a foreign language source is still a potentially good and valid source, and if you can't verify a claim because you don't speak the language, then you just have to ask someone who does. We conspicuously failed to agree the same thing for mathematics.

This might be because such a high proportion of Wikipedians graduated in the arts and humanities.

Nowadays, when machine translations are confident and plausible, but sadly not necessarily accurate, we have editors "translating" articles from and to languages that the editor does not speak. I suggest not allowing people to self-certify that their mathematical proof is valid. We would need a panel of trusted reviewers.—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, panels of trusted reviewers in all technical areas would be good, as would the end to world hunger. I am not sure which will happen first. The unspoken truth is that Wikipedia is seriusly understaffed in technical areas. So we will struggle along, as is. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts @David Eppstein.

Regarding "reading the code" not always being the best way to verify, while this is true, I think it's also true that it is sometimes helpful, like in the case of audio from plain waveforms that is given in the initial comment of this topic.

Moreover, I'd like to emphasize that providing the code means also that the code can be executed, which vastly expands the group possible verifiers (think even simple human errors on any level - wrong program ran, wrong parameters, wrong constant value, etc), whereas reading+changing+executing loop gives tools for further expansion, as users can even upgrade their understanding to become verifiers.

Overall, because the original post is just claiming that there are some cases where this is a real problem and is just looking for a good-faith guideline that prevents deletion from WP:V on one side and stalling quality verification on the other, I hope that it's not going to be buried under comments about the cases for which this problem is likely never going to surface. Zlamma (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that you also, like most here so far, are merely looking to consider encouraging users to consider leaving more details on how they produced a file. The way I formed the questions was just reflecting my genuine unknown which matters you are in agreement with. Apologies if they sounded too specific.

Re:

> "You asked: Do I argue against any initiative to change the WP:V text? At this stage, yes I do. If after consulting Wikipedia:Village pump/Policy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound production it's clear that the consensus is against me, then I might withdraw that objection."

Wikipedia:Village pump/Policy actually encourages using talk page like this to "for drafting with a more focused group", so we may as well address any remaining arguments here before they repeat in high-visibility forums.

Re:

> "You didn't ask: Is WP:V the right rule to edit in this situation? If you'd asked me that, then I would say that the right rule to edit in the first instance is Help:Creation and usage of media files#Audio

If you can, please elaborate why the earlier explicit implorations to not make an audio-files specific solution should be rejected, by responding in our latest thread. Zlamma (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@S Marshall, another quibble from me. Your example with the Beethoven excerpt is inconsistent with the practice used in the field: at FAC and other venues, excerpts are still expected to be sourced to the score wherever they appear per WP:V, as they are reproductions – i.e. direct quotations. I agree with the rest of your essay though, which is why I suggested encouraging some form of documentation for user-created demonstrations earlier. I'm glad to hear above you have no objections to this route, as I think it is the path most people have now coalesced on. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 14:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The excerpt isn't what needs to be sourced! It's the fact or claim that it's making. In that case, what needs to be sourced to the score is the fact or claim that "this is Beethoven's 5th".—S Marshall T/C 14:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not quite getting your point. The claim that "this [the excerpt] is Beethoven's 5th" cannot exist without the excerpt it refers to. Although in a purely technical sense, the citation is attached to the prose, the text only exists to provide attribution for the excerpt, as is required for any other direct quotation: in practice, the excerpt would otherwise likely be removed for a lack of relevance. In my mind, it's a similar situation to quotations of text, where most will have some kind of introductory clause describing the speaker. WP:V requires a citation for direct quotations regardless, and does not consider these clauses: why would it not apply to musical quotations? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 16:08, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The confusion may be about an assumption that I've made. So let me state it explicitly.

The proposal we're considering is to encourage editors to explain how they produced a media file, in this case a sound file.

I have assumed that this explanation would be attached to the file, rather than to the claim. This allows for one file to be reused to support several different claims in several different articles. ("This is the sound of an electric guitar"; "This is the sound of a Fender Stratocaster being played through a Marshall amplifier"; "This is a piece in E pentatonic minor"; "This is an instrument being played at 120 bpm".)

But this policy is about claims, not files. What WP:V relates to is individual claims in context, so to comply with WP:V, each one of the above claims, if challenged, might need a separate citation.

Therefore the proposed rule isn't very compatible with how WP:V works.

I also want to add that my method statement, hypothetically "I generated this file myself by playing my Fender Stratocaster through my Marshall amplifier into a microphone", would I think, be remarkably difficult to prove to someone who challenges it.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I will produce a file for Beethoven's 12th symphony. Let us see what happens. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I get you now, thank you. You're right about crossed wires: I thought you had pivoted to talking about the use of musical quotations in articles (see examples like Saxophone Sonata (Creston), Short Symphony, etc.), where common practice is as I described. I only invoked WP:V due to this misunderstanding – my own proposal is to instead pursue better standards of documentation for user-generated files – so I agree with what you're saying with regards to claims and the policy's irrelevance to file descriptions.

Since I think we've all come to a similar conclusion on the correct course of action, I wonder whether it would be worth porting this discussion over to Help talk:Creation and usage of media files? Pinging substantial participants to gauge opinions on that: @S Marshall @Zlamma @Trumpetrep. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I totally understand User:S Marshall's point. Even if I do wonder if this is true, "you can't just copy/paste a worked example from a textbook without violating copyright", it's neither here nor there.

The verifiability of audio files became an issue with me when I was tackling egregiously out of bounds music theory articles where people were just saying whatever they wanted and uploading random files. It all blurred together into a highly suspicious melange that did more harm than good. It confuses editors and readers alike. In going line-by-line to verify facts, it was impossible not to wonder, "Hang on, is this audio file actually the 'pythagorean major third' it claims to be?" How does one even verify that? What are the rules for such demonstrations?

That's why I started asking the question all over the joint. I'm glad to read other editors' perspectives, and whatever moves us forward is welcome! Trumpetrep (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I've found in such cases that declaring the image/recording/whatever to be a poor illustration is usually effective. You don't have to prove that it's technically wrong; you just have convince people that it's unclear. This is easier to do if you can provide a better option. It changes the discussion from "This is factually wrong and a policy violation!!!" to "It's a bit hard to see/hear the thing that matters in that version". See WP:PERTINENCE for some ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to go back to these "examples like Saxophone Sonata (Creston), Short Symphony, etc.":

These are both FAs. Short Symphony#Structure and Saxophone Sonata (Creston)#Movements both use <score> to provide brief "quotations". They don't use a File:, which what we've been discussing here.

The <score> feature doesn't support ref tags, so there are no little blue clicky numbers associated with these scores. IMO this is correct because this is WP:PLOTCITE territory: Anyone who genuinely can't guess, without having it spoon-fed to them in a ref, that one way to double-check the score snippet would be to find a copy of the musical score is, to put it bluntly, too stupid to be allowed to use the internet without supervision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I realised my original comment was mistaken, which is why I made this reply to S Marshall. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

That said, I've had a thought about your point and still disagree. This is not WP:PLOTCITE territory, as the MOS guidance is is based on (WP:PLOTREF) explicitly notes that if the summary includes a direct quotation from the work, then Wikipedia:Verifiability requires it to have an inline citation, just like any other direct quotation. Unless you're claiming that musical quotations don't constitute direct quotations, I don't see how this applies. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe just a quibble too, but in your response to my message, you didn't respond to my counter-example to your earlier claim that statements about how a file is generated, things that can't be proven by a citation, fall outside Verifiability. Using your definition of verifiability, would you really argue that providing an instruction to a deterministic file-generator does not "make sure anyone can check a fact or claim, i.e. without any specialist knowledge".

Perhaps you want to update your definition, but I wonder why not just adopt a notion that citation is just one way of helping verifiability (and sometimes an insufficient one, as I noted here by saying "even when there's a citation, because of the need to avoid copyright-infringement like described in this case, the demonstration can still be wrong and unverifiable"). Zlamma (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. TarnishedPath^talk 06:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not unprecedented for generally reliable sources to contain typos or have contradictory dates. For example, several reliable sources say that Haidar Abashidze died on January 3, 1966, but others say it was December 29, 1965. However, this is factually incorrect because his death was announced in newspapers on December 31, 1965. Another case like this is Siko Dolidze - many sources say that he died on 17 July 1983, but this is also incorrect because his obituary was published in newspapers on 21 June 1983. This shows that even "reliable" sources can have typos. I propose adoption of a rule that treats obituaries as more reliable sources of death dates than sources written longer after the death of the subject. I feel like this page is a bit dismissive of being accurate in the name of citing reliable sources, but we should emphasize the importance of figuring out which statement was accurate when different reliable sources contradict each other.--CitationAuditor (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

When reliable sources contradict each other, then give Wikipedia:Due weight to them. One mistake doesn't override a dozen accurate sources. If a significant number sources disagree, then write something like "Some sources say he died on X and others on Y". You may find WP:DOBCONFLICT to be useful if there is a dispute.

In the case of publication dates, remember that a "June" magazine might actually get published in May, June, or July. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

No, that's a six day a week newspaper, not a magazine, that is numbered daily.--CitationAuditor (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The timing can be more important that the weight. For example, when we have an obituary from a daily newspaper published in June 1983 that has an issue number lining up with the other June issue numbers, it doesn't matter how many encyclopedias say that he died in July 1983, it's clear that one encyclopedia made a typo in the date with a 07.1983 instead of a 06.1983 and got picked up by other encyclopedias. Please, let quality take priority over quantity.--CitationAuditor (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Reality and truth matter too. We can, should and do use editorial judgement in some very select cases to omit obviously erroneous sources. Katzrockso (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Attempting to create specific rules for every possible circumstance when reliable sources contradict each other would be an endless task, and unnecessary, since they'd all end up repeating much the same thing. We are allowed (and even encouraged) to engage in talk-page discussions over whether there is clear evidence that a source is wrong about one specific thing, and if we decide it is clearly wrong, not to use it. Beyond that, as WhatamIdoing says, due weight applies. This however requires looking at the specific details of the sources, and not their general type. Obituaries can be anything but trustworthy, for multiple reasons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

How common is it for an obituary to be published exactly one month before a person actually died, compared to the number of times that encyclopedias make typos? I'm just saying we need to recognize the importance of checking contemporary sources. Of course obituaries might exaggerate a person's accomplishments, but a daily newspaper with the date printed on it is a pretty good indicator of the timeframe someone died. Don't you think that an obituary for a person published in on a December 31, 1965 newspaper should be treated as more reliable than a much later encyclopedia that says they died on January 3, 1966?--CitationAuditor (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. I was responding to your suggestion that we need 'a rule that treats obituaries as more reliable sources of death dates than sources written longer after the death of the subject'. I wasn't commenting on the specifics of one particular instance where sources get things wrong, I was merely pointing out that obituaries in general can sometimes be unreliable, and hence why your proposed 'rule' was ill-advised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

How about we have a basic policy broadly encouraging using obituaries to fact-check death dates?--CitationAuditor (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

How about no. Obituaries are as fallible as any other source, and cannot be used to blindly 'fact-check' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

You don't think we should presume that a person whose obituary was published in a 21 June 1983 daily newspaper did not, in fact, die in July 1983? Should we give equal weight to a 1965 obituary for someone and an encyclopedia that says they died in 1966 for chosing which year of death category should apply? Do you know how rare it is for someone's obituary to be published when they are still alive?--CitationAuditor (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

How about actually attempting to read what I wrote before responding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

An actually reliable source and the criteria for a Wikipedia reliable source are two completely different things. The Wikipedia requirement is just for certain trappings (which do do some useful vetting) and does not require actual reliability. Actual reliability would be expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, can we at least make an effort to attain actual factual accuracy in what we write?--CitationAuditor (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Generally we do. But not by inventing arbitrary rules based on a dubious premise. Instead, we use editorial judgement to deal with specific circumstances, as and when they arise. If writing Wikipedia could be reduced to a set of rules to be blindly followed, we could get a bot to do it, and find something else to do with our time instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Assuming a person died before their obituary was published is hardly a "dubious" premise.--CitationAuditor (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

If that was an assumption I'd made before commenting on your ill-conceived attempt to concoct a general rule out of a single instance, you might have a point. Since it wasn't, I suggest you stop posting vacuous blather and actually address what I wrote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I am addressing what you wrote, but you keep pretending otherwise. Please top being so rude.--CitationAuditor (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

If that was a genuine attempt to address what I wrote, I'd have to suggest that you put more work into your comprehension skills. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to engage with you anymore, you clearly have no interest in a productive discussion. I have a hard time believing you have interest in good faith in discussion when you start gaslighting like this, insulting me - espeically given your username. You should know that situations where someone dies after obituary is published is extraordinarily rare and results in media coverage in and of itself.--CitationAuditor (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Given the complete unwillingness of the proposer to explain why we actually need a specific policy regarding the relative reliability of obituaries as sources, I suggest this discussion be closed. The issue seems to be adequately covered by existing policy, and no evidence has been offered that this is a recurring problem. We don't create general policies just because one particular source seems to have got something wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm saying that widespread typos in death dates in encyclopedias is evidence that we would benefit from an official policy encouraging checking to make sure that any death date in an encyclopedia does not post-date the publication of an obituary for someone, as opposed to relying on encyclopedias alone. I didn't think this would be controversial position given that typos are fairly common but publication of obituaries before the subject died is extremely rare. But I will withdraw this suggestion and hand you your victory, I have no further interest here.--CitationAuditor (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that 'Widespread typos in death dates in encyclopedias' is entirely unsupported by evidence, withdrawing the proposal seems wise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I gave instances in the start of this post.--CitationAuditor (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

You said nothing about encyclopaedias in your first post, and only gave vague handwaving subsequently. Instead, you made a vague comments regarding a couple of individuals, while failing to link sources you considered to be in error. None of that is evidence for 'Widespread typos' in encyclopaedias, and wouldn't be, even if you'd actually told us what the sources were. Not least because 'encyclopaedias' can range from highly reputable sources to utter trash. Sources need to be assessed individually, and not by type. Editorial judgement, not an endless proliferation of arbitrary rules. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

My apologies. I don't know why I forgot to list the examples I'm pretty ADHD. The ones I recall off the top of my head:

• Volume 1 of the Georgian Soviet Encyclopedia says that Haidar Abashidze died 3 January 1966 (see page 21), but the death announcement I linked about from December 31, 1965 shows that is wrong.
• Anton Iosifovich Polikevich died in 1950 which is shown by his obituary here in Zarya Vostoka, but Кино: энциклопедический словарь said it was 1964.
• Muhitdin Qoriyoqubov's obituary was published on February 3, 1957 and specifically said that he died on 2 February 1957, but his Tashkent Encyclopedia biography said it was 22 February, which looks like whoever was typing it accident pressed the 2 key twice.--CitationAuditor (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, here's that encyclopedia saying Siko Dolidze died on 17 July 1983, even though his death announcement published in the newspaper dated 18 June 1983 newspaper explicitly says that he died on 17 June. I previously assumed that mistake came from the Georgian Soviet Encyclopedia, but his article was in a pre-1983 volume so I was wrong about which encyclopedia it was.--CitationAuditor (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it that you've found encyclopaedias which are in error, but how would that justify a general policy? One can find errors in all sorts of sources. Encyclopaedias. Obituaries. Newspaper articles. Books by subject-matter experts. Peer-reviewed scientific works in highly credible scientific journals. Which is why we have to assess them for reliability for specific statements, not make arbitrary decisions based on their type. There are good reasons not to over-rely on encyclopaedia entries as sources (e.g. the risk of inadvertent plagiarism if relying on a single source, over-emphasis on the views of the author etc), but for simple apparently factual matters I can see no particular reason to avoid them, as a class. Not without a lot more to go on than a few examples of the sort of errors that might be found anywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying we avoid encyclopedias broadly, just a suggesting it might be a helpful policy that if you are writing a biography, are using a Soviet Encyclopedia as your sole source for the death date, and have the means to find an obituary for the deceased subject to check the death date (ex, you're writing about an Armenian artist, the National Library of Armenia website hasn't crashed today, and you're fluent in Armenian language), then you should be strongly encouraged, the in name of WP:Verifiability, to take a moment to search for their obituary to ensure that you are not saying the person you are writing about died after their obituary was published. By no means should you be required to add an obituary, and obituaries certainly can be wrong (I've occasionally seen mistakes in the number of awards received in obituary award lists) but we should actively encourage the effort. I just showed you how often these Soviet and post-soviet encyclopedias claim people died after their obituary was published, so it is my opinion that it would be good practice to proactively encourage checking with obituaries to prevent this problem.--CitationAuditor (talk) 01:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I maintain that a policy of "When [insert Sloppy Soviet Encyclopedia] says someone died days, a month, or even years after their obituary was published, then use the death date from the obituary by default, unless there is subsequent media coverage about their obituary being mistakenly published while they were still alive." would be a reasonable policy. Since, you know, people tend to get their obituary published after they die.--CitationAuditor (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

We are not going to create a policy regarding the use of Soviet encyclopaedias as sources for death dates. Far too specific, and if these encyclopaedias are really that bad (which a few examples don't really prove one way or another), should we be using them as sources for anything? It might be worthwhile for someone to write an essay on not relying on single sources for death dates, while other sources are accessible, though even that is questionable, since checking against multiple sources is good practice for more or less anything of significance other than attributed opinion. You seem to be trying to 'fix' a very specific instance of a much broader issue. And doing so in a way that discourages actually following more general good practice: find sources. Assess them. If there are contradictions, deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Editorial judgement, not blind rule-following. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that case-by-case basis is good. But I have been under the impression that the de facto rule is "whichever date is reported more often is the one that rules", which very often flies in the face of maintaining factual accuracy (again, back to encyclopedias saying people died after their obituary was published).--CitationAuditor (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

You are under the wrong impression. Or whoever told you that is. If anyone tells you that you count sources rather than assess them, and go with the majority regardless, they are simply wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm gonna save this for later for next time it comes up.--CitationAuditor (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The new version states

use an inline citation, and in-text attribution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imagine this scenario:

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

My questions for you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This policy currently says many things about BLPs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's my proposal:

Current:

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

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

Proposed:

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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