Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 80

Archive 75

←

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Template:Sources exist

The first 50 articles that contain the "Sources exist" template and the amount of times the string "<ref" occurs in them

Number Article Count 1 Genosha 31 2 Latveria 17 3 Zerg 25 4 The Black Pits of Luna 5 5 Mara Jade 15 6 Everett, Massachusetts 41 7 The Best... Album in the World...Ever! 0 8 List of Taoists 0 9 Dead Prez 4 10 Terminal ballistics 3 11 Ş 0 12 Little John 4 13 Greasy Kid Stuff 0 14 Tongji (spirit medium) 0 15 Trinovantes 2 16 Rabbi ben Ezra 2 17 Elisa Maza 14 18 Mimic (comics) 37 19 Charles Strite 5 20 Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) 115 21 Travis McGee 12 22 Witches (Discworld) 9 23 Lucius II: The Prophecy 5 24 Department of Computer Science and Technology, University of Cambridge 16 25 What Is Enlightenment? 2 26 Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency 18 27 Belisarius series 7 28 Covenant (Halo) 48 29 Artistdirect 10 30 Michael Bivins 1 31 Lala Mara 0 32 G'Kar 3 33 Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium 53 34 Knockout (1971 comic) 0 35 Dhalsim 25 36 Starscream 50 37 Murder of Kristen French 8 38 Greenfield land 3 39 Initial D (video game series) 8 40 Liquid Snake 25 41 Anointed One (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) 0 42 Nebuchadnezzar (The Matrix) 11 43 Painkiller (magazine) 6 44 Master Mold 10 45 HK-47 30 46 John Scolvus 14 47 Season of the Sakura 1 48 Fantastic Five 2 49 Raúl Díaz Arce 0 50 Sally Baldwin 7

At what point should we remove {{Sources exist}} from an article? For example, the city of Everett has a population of 50.000 people, there is no doubt that it is notable.

I propose we remove the template from all articles that contain 5 or more references the string "<ref" 5 times or more. Polygnotus (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Any editor can remove a template of they believe that the point raised is no longer an issue. However doing things en masse requires care, "<ref" 5 times could be one reference using a refname 5 times and no evaluation of the quality of that source would be taking place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

OK, agreed, I just wrote it like that to avoid 2 extra lines of code. I changed it to 5 or more references. I don't think its fair to ask for a evaluation of the quality of the sources. Since the template has been slapped on articles with very little thought behind it it should be easy to remove. Polygnotus (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the template has been slapped on articles with very little thought has it? I'm sure in many cases, as with other tags, it might have been. But to classify ever use of it as thoughtless seems a stretch. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

classify ever use of it as thoughtless I didn't. Polygnotus (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the purpose of removing a template, designed to flag an article to have its verifiability reviewed by an editor, if you're not actually going to review its sources for verifiability? By my accounting references fail verification on spot check nearly half the time (although in fairness that's biased toward me only spot-checking hot, controversial, stale, and questionable articles). SamuelRiv (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv: Why do you insist on being part of a discussion about a template when you do not know what the text on the template says? The template is for notability, not verifiability. Please read what the template actually says. Also read Template:Sources_exist#When_not_to_use. If you want to make a new template that says "someone should compare the sources with the statements in the article" you could, and then you could put it on basically every article (except maybe the 0.000000000001% FA/GA). Almost no-one is actually comparing sources with claims made in the article, and this template is not telling people to do that. I honestly think a large majority of people are unable to write a decent article. What is the purpose of having a template that is not helpful to the reader or editor on hundreds of pages? Cool, some rando thought sources existed to establish notability. That is no reason to put a giant banner at the top. I have been working on Category:Unreferenced_BLPs_from_March_2020; it would be cool if you could do Technical decision. Polygnotus (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

One of the articles I looked at the other day (with this tag on it) had multiple refs, but almost all of them were non-independent. I don't remember the subject, but imagine an article about a band, citing different pages of the band's own website. While I think that filtering the list for 5+ refs would be a good starting point for manual review, I also think that manual review would be helpful.

@Polygnotus, do you think this banner should be on the talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this diff by BoomboxTestarossa is an important example. They replaced the {{notability}} tag with the {{sources exist}} tag. In short, it's being used to clear up bigger problems (should this get deleted?) and prevent duplication of effort (essentially meaning "I already did a BEFORE search, and I decided it was unlikely to get deleted at AFD"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a presumption of non-notability whenever an article is created. Someone has to prove notability, by describing what the article is about (e.g. Everett) or by including sources. New Page Patrollers will make sure it gets deleted if it is not notable. But if an article exists for years, and/or has a bunch of sources, we can safely presume that it is probably a notable topic. So it would make sense to me to say, after x month or x references we can automatically remove Template:Sources exist.

If we look at The Black Pits of Luna it was nominated, the template got added, and then the AfD was closed as keep, but the template was not removed. If an AfD is closed as keep, does that not mean the article is notable and the template can be removed?

Another option is to add a parameter to the Notability template that changes the first sentence of that template from:

The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

to:

An editor has performed a search and found that sufficient sources exist to establish the subject's notability. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.

If someone did a WP:BEFORE search and concluded that a topic is notable, is that simple fact reason to put a giant ugly banner on an article for years? The information that someone believes the topic is notable is only potentially relevant in a deletion discussion, so sticking it on the talkpage would make far more sense. The readers of Wikipedia articles don't want to see a giant ugly banner. And they won't be converted from readers to editors because we warn them that the article is low quality. Polygnotus (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether there is a presumption non-notability – you might well be right about that – but according to the guidelines, there's supposed to be a presumption of notability if the real world (NB: not the article) has a handful of decent sources.

I like your suggestion of merging the two templates. The {{sources exist}} template could become a wrapper template (essentially, a template that auto-adds the new parameter). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

How do we get this ball rolling? There are probably quite a few ways to achieve this on a technical level and I am not sure what the best way is. Polygnotus (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

On a technical level, I don't think it would be difficult. Compare Template:Original research section and Template:Original research; the former passes a parameter to the latter that changes the displayed text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

If sources exist why not use {{Refideas}} instead, that would include details of what you found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, the template is just facilitating drive-by tagging. No effort has been made to clean up the mess. You can use refideas or just stick some sources on the talkpage. In a deletion discussion the moderator will certainly check the talkpage before making a decision. Polygnotus (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Spot checking some of the articles it's used on, I wonder if some of these are editors adding the wrong template. As far as I can tell[1] there are less than two thousand articles with this template, that's in the realms manual cleanup. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I have to wholeheartedly agree with "use {{Refideas}} instead" and "[{{sources exist}}] is just facilitating drive-by tagging" by either PoV pushers or cluebags.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say editors using the incorrect template, rather than cluebags, but yeah Refideas sounds more useful. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, well, see other discussion going on at this page. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"I think there is a presumption of non-notability whenever an article is created." Isn't it the opposite? If the article was created than an editor believed it to be notable, therefore the presumption is that they're right until someone contends that they aren't. If someone is going around consistently creating articles which they don't believe are notable and/or which objectively don't meet out notability standards they have forfeited their editing privileges. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Well... this might be a bit off-topic here, but think about it. You're a new editor. You create an article. First, you can't; you have to create a draft. Then we tell you that you did it all wrong, and go out of our way to keep you discouraged (you add six sources that you believe are independent and reliable; we wait six weeks and then tell you that you need to add independent reliable sources; if you add six more, we will tell you that it's all advertising and promotion). If it finally escapes the draft space, then another crew shows up to tagbomb it and refuse to mark it as reviewed. We routinely have new articles that are viewed by 50 editors on the day of their creation but still remain in the review queues. Why? Well, none of the first 50 found an excuse to delete the article, but they're apparently hoping that someone else will. If they didn't want it deleted, they'd kick it out of the review queues. The people in AFC and NPP probably do have a mental bias towards non-notability (quite possibly because they see so much non-notable, self-promotional content). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That bears almost no resemblance to my experience when starting to edit wikipedia, is that what happened to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

No, but I started editing forever ago, when the rules and systems were quite different. For example, back when I started, self-promotion was officially okay, as long as you were discreet about it and believed that Wikipedia would genuinely benefit from your self-promotional edits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thinking about this structurally the subject tag is a few things:

1. A useful piece of information that sources probably exist to establish wp:notability. And an implied statement that those sources are not in the article. "Probably" because it's only as good as the reliability and objectivity of the person who placed the tag, but for usage of this tag both are probably likely
2. Ramdom automated commentary, not the subject of the post that the article might have wp:Ver, wp:or and completeness problems. Maybe true, but random automated commentary that is not the subject of the post is not very informative. It's also "off target" of the post which is about wp:notability, not wp:ver, wp:nor or completeness.

I have no strong opinion on what should happen, but thought these notes might be useful.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with point 1. The assertion that sources "probably" exist is neither "useful" nor "information" (in any sense we care about); it's a vague hand-wavy assumption of no use to anyone. If sources probaly don't exist, then the claim does not belong in the article (WP:V: information must be verifiable even if it is not already verified with a citation). And it's a matter of sourcing that the entire subject exists and is notable, then the article should not exist, per WP:N: to have its own article, the subject must be covered in-depth by multiple reliable sources. If you add a claim to an article without a source yet, you are already asserting that sources exist for it, no "probably" about it. If some other person inserted a claim with no source and you know sources exist for it, then cite one or at least dump a link to one (or sufficient information about it, if not online) on the talk page. If you just assume that sources "probably" exist for it, this is useless in every way. If you've done the legwork and can find no sourcing for it, then remove the claim or at least tag it with {{citation needed}} or {{dubious}}, as the case seems to warrant. If someone elsewhere has some obscure source (out-of-print book or whatever), they can cite it to resolve the tag or restore the deleted claim. If not, then the encyclopedia is better without the perpetually unsourced (and either very difficult to source or outright unsourceable) claim, or at least with it tagged as problematic if it is not outright deleted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure about that?

Imagine that I left a note on your talk page that said "Hey, I looked at that article we were talking about sending to AFD, and I found some sources. I don't have time to deal with it (and you know I'm not interested in sports articles anyway), but I no longer have any doubts about its notability".

Would that really be useless to you? I don't really see much difference between a tag on the article saying that whoever placed the tag claims to have found sources that in their opinion establish notability, and me posting a note on your talk page saying that I found sources that IMO establish notability.

(As for the statement that sources "probably" exist [which is in North's comment but not in the tag itself], perhaps you'd be more satisfied if he'd written "A useful piece of information that – according to the tagging editor, who, like the rest of us, is a human and occasionally makes mistakes – sources exist to establish wp:notability".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That's a trick question, because it wouldn't be useless to me (since I know your work and trust you) but it would be useless to 99.9999% of the readership who don't know you. Worse, it shifts responsibility for verifiability (if ever so slightly) from published sources to trusted editors, and that is anathema. That's what {{Sources exist}} actually is: an unattributed and unsupported statement to "Trust me", and at best should be moved to the Talk page (as plain, unboxed text with signature). But your assurance about sources, and my trust in your claim, could be upended by RW events tomorrow, when you suddenly get called away on a five-year expedition to the Amazon rain forest and now we're stuck with your comment and no way to proceed. (Think about what would happen to an unsourced edit with an edit summary of "Trust me, sources exist.") If only you can find the sources but don't have the time, your assurance is not an escape clause for policy observance and the right approach is delete now and recreate it later when someone finds some sources and has the time to add them. Or move it to Draft. Mathglot (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure about it. And there's a big difference in that editor A trying in user-talk to convince editor B (the editors are probably familiar with each other), that A is sure something is notable, based on sources A has seen but not cited yet, is a near-meaningless personal conversation that has more to do with editorial influence over whether it is practical for B to engage a process like WP:AFD. What this template instead does is tell the readers that some unknown person is asserting that sources exist for the claim/subject but is refusing to cite them. That's actually worse than pointless. If editor A wants for some reason to let other editors know that A has found sources but not cited them yet, they can do that on the talk page (in about the same amount of time as applying this pointless and misleading template).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's explore this.

First of all, @Mathglot, I regret to say that your math is wrong, because we only have about 750,000 registered editors making an edit each year, and and considerably more than one in a million of them will recognize my username (or yours, or SMcCandlish's). Furthermore, as a general rule, these tags are placed by, and intended for, the convenience of higher-volume editors ("people like us"), and only about 10K of us are active at any point in time. Even if we assume that a relevant level of 'recognition' is limited to Dunbar's number, then 1.5% will recognize "me" (and you, and many other long-time, high-volume editors), and even among the majority of experienced editors who don't recognize our names, most of them will know how to do a little quick review to find out what our probable standing in the community is (Edit count? Block logs? User_talk: full of warnings? Oooh, you're both template editors – you probably know something about technical stuff).

Second, when we're talking about switching from {{notability}} to {{sources exist}}, the complaints here suggest that you are both thinking that an unproven accusation by one editor – one that doesn't even hint at a WP:BEFORE search being undertaken, and whose use has, in some cases in the past, been motivated by bias ("Ugh, not another <profession> from <place>!") – is somehow more credible than a claim by another editor that they did some work and think this is a viable subject for an article.

I do not accept the premise that these tags are intended for readers. We do not have maintenance tags for the purpose of telling readers about anything that's wrong with the articles because we have Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Polygnotus:, to your OP question: why not mass delete all of them now, and then send {{Sources exist}} to Tfd? What purpose does it serve? The only one I can see is that it adds tracking category Articles needing additional references, but {{Unreferenced}} and {{More citations needed}} already do that, and make no anonymous claim about whether sources exist or not. Mathglot (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly why I sent it to TfD last time, but it was kept. Perhaps someone (@SMcCandlish, Mathglot, and ActivelyDisinterested:?) can explain the redundancy clearer than I could, and try again? – Joe (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I might give it a shot, especially since this discussion already indicates a strong lean toward deleting it, from editors who are WP:V regulars instead of WP:TFD regulars. But I would not mass-remove the template first; TfD frowns on that as a WP:FAITACCOMPLI move that makes the template seem unused when it was not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I would call only 1, maybe 2, editors in that discussion TFD regulars. I'm one of them, and you can see how I !voted on it. Izno (talk) 07:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm for giving editors options, but as I said above I would use RefIdeas rather than Sources exist. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, this template is used to flag when articles pass notability, but it is not obvious from the article's current sources. For example, this template can be used when a person passes WP:GNG, and GNG-passing sources were found with a google search, but the 3ish GNG passing sources have not been added to the article yet. At what point should we remove {{Sources exist}} from an article? As soon as enough sources are added to demonstrate passing an SNG or GNG without having to go searching off-site for sources. Having the GNG passing sources in the article is, in my opinion, a good practice and an efficiency for new page patrollers (or anyone that is thinking about AFDing the article). Having the sources in the article saves having to do unnecessary WP:BEFORE searches. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In general, I think the entire proposal to remove this template from use is a solution in search of a problem. The template has its uses, as already explained by others in this discussion, and the work-time cost of keeping it in use is effectively nil. By contrast, pushing to delete or deprecate it is clearly not a trivial endeavor, and serves no clear purpose; any mistaken drive by usage of this template will simply be replaced by mistaken drive by usage of a more generic template. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I wish I could stick citation needed templates in your comment No one is removing this templates from pages where it does not belong. Getting rid of it is certainly not trivial, but it stops the problem growing bigger and bigger. The opinion of someone that a topic is notable is worthless unless that person provides actual sources (but in that case they should not use this template but refideas). No one has made a convincing case that this template has a legitimate use. The work-time cost of keeping it in use is growing every time someone uses it. Polygnotus (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No one has made a convincing case that this template has a legitimate use.. I've just skimread this discussion and there are multiple comments above that convince me that this template as legitimate uses. There might be alternatives that are more useful, but that doesn't mean the template is useless or that the opinion of the person placing it is worthless. Rosguill's comment that any mistaken drive by usage of this template will simply be replaced by mistaken drive by usage of a [different] template. is one that should not be dismissed out of hand. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I reject your conclusion. Any replacement of mistaken, drive-by usage of this template by another mistaken drive-by template would be an improvement. Think about mistaken use of {{unreferenced}} at the top of a cited article: that is likely to provoke a silent 'wtf?' in the mind of many editors seeing it, and may provoke one of them either to remove it, or add even more citations. In contrast, what is the likeliest response to mistaken {{Sources exist}}? Maybe something like, "Good to know, I guess?" followed by... by nothing; maybe a head-scratch. Or maybe even by, "Thank goodness I don't have to cite this one; I can spend my time better elsewhere." I'm of the opinion that every edit must improve an article in some way, no matter how slight; valid maintenance templates fulfill this by alerting an editor to fix something. The {{sources exist}} essentially does the opposite, as it says something like: "Yeah, I know this looks unsourced, but 'trust me bro', there are plenty of sources," making it less likely that another editor will source it. This harms the article slightly and therefore should never be placed. By all means, replace it by a mistaken {{Unreferenced}} template—that would be an incremental improvement, therefore justifiable, as it may provoke action by the next editor to remove the mistaken {{Unreferenced}} template. Think about your reaction to the edit summary, "Added paragraph on her early membership in Komsomol. Uncited, but sources exist." The template has the same message, but is unsigned and remains visible to every reader of the article; that's a step in the wrong direction. Mathglot (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And I reject your conclusion. The assertion that sources exist is an indication that someone has determined that sources exist, satisfying WP:V (no material has been challenged, yet). It is an indication that anyone thinking of nominating the article for deletion must actually do a thorough BEFORE search (rather than the vague wave of "I did a single google search, I may or may not have looked at most of the results" that is too often permitted) before nominating. Your hypothetical edit summary is actually less useful than the template in this regard as it is less visible to future reviewers.

This template is more useful than "Unreferenced" because it asserts that someone who spends time looking for sources to verify the article will find them, and thus their time will not have been wasted. In contrast {{unreferenced}} just says "this article has no references, nobody knows whether sources actually exist". Neither template should be placed on, and both can be removed from, an article/section that does have sources cited so they are identical in that regard. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Compare Mathglot's hypothetical edit-summary equivalent of {{sources exist}}:

• "Added paragraph on her early membership in Komsomol. Uncited, but sources exist."

against the equivalent meaning for the {{notability}} tag:

• "Added paragraph on her early membership in Komsomol. Uncited, and I kind of doubt that sources exist, so I'm asking other editors to review this and then blank my paragraph if they can't find any sources."

The first edit summary does happen; you might even be able to find an example in my own edits. Look for an edit summary that says I don't have the source at hand at the moment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

"The template has its uses ... to flag when articles pass notability, but it is not obvious from the article's current sources" - This is rather misleading. It is used by an editor to claim that they believe that the article might pass WP:Notability, without doing anything whatsoever to demonstrate it. There is no reason at all for a reader-facing template to make a declaration that is only of interest to editors, and which is of extremely minimal interest to editors anyway because it is just evidence-free handwaving. Nearly every non-notable article has people who claim it is really notable and then fail to demonstrate it. We do not need "reader-spamming" templates that simply enable more of this behavior, and cause it to leak out of AfD and article talk pages and into readers' faces. If you really, really are sure that a subject passes WP:GNG but just don't have the time right this moment to demonstrate it, that's what the talk page is for. And even this is a not very useful use of the talk page; it would be much more sensible to simply set aside some time to find some sources and post those (or work them into the article) than announce to everyone, by any means, that "someone oughta" or even "I plan to". "Has its uses" does not mean they are good ones. I could use a hammer to drive in a screw, but this would be a poor idea. The real problem here is in the entire notion that one editor gets to decide in their own opinion that something is notable. This is a determination made by the community and not based on oppinion but by the sources presented. "I think it's notable but I have no sources to show it" is completley pointless and certainly doesn't belong jammed into the article in a huge template that looks like a warning to readers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Input needed on language like "considered one of the greatest", etc.

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:PUFFERY

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:PUFFERY. Curious what WP:V regulars think the sourcing circumstances are that would be needed to accept a claim like "considered one of the greatest [occupational speciality here]", "widely regarded as one of the best [whatever] of their generation", etc. These are fairly common claims in major bios, but also fairly often disputed as to their wording and as to whether they can be included.

There's actually some disagreement in the thread about whether such claims are permissible at all in WP's own voice even when there are a lot of sources, countered by a view that it's necessary when the sourcing is going there. People in the middle-ground are suggesting that it should be included but only as specifically attributed quotations, or specifically attributed pharaphrases, and others saying it should be a case-by-case basis kind of thing. It really seems that we don't actually have a solid standard about this kind of WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, other than that it is exceptional. There does seem to be a general feeling that WP in its own voice saying something like "was one of the greatest [foo]" is not okay; there has to be some indication of some sort that this is an opinion found in sources, not a statement of cold hard fact by Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue is less "the greatest", and more "is widely considered". I think we need more than just what we now call click bait (and in the past such sensationalism might be called tabloid, or futher back, called yellow press). Aren't we guided to avoid hyperbole in articles? Doesn't some MoS somewhere likely suggest phrasing like: "According to X, Y-person is widely considered the greatest Z...". And such a sentence is only allowable under certain conditions?

Is this issue only limited to sports and/or entertainment persons?

Do we need to take a look at the verifiability of a eulogy or an obituary? Or LinkedIn, for that matter?

Do we need anything beyond MOS:FLOWERY?

I'm sincerely asking - (please save me from an MoS deep dive : ) - jc37 02:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't really have that much of a "dog in the fight". I can see multiple viewpoints about this and am trying to broker more input into the discussion, thus the pointer to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:PUFFERY. It won't be helpful to WP:TALKFORK a new thread about it here, probably.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I would look for multiple high quality sources that actually said that, i.e. "so-and-so is considered this-and-that". Finding a collection a sources that just said "so-and-so is this-and-that" would be WP:SYNTH, because it takes original research to judge how representative those judgements are. And I do think statements like this can be encyclopaedic, if used accurately and sparingly. An article about say, Leonardo da Vinci, would be failing to adhere to NPOV if it didn't mention the immense acclaim he has received. – Joe (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I'm not the one that needs convincing, which is why "Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:PUFFERY". :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Just as somebody who makes it their business to deal with tags, I would ban these constructions entirely and shoot anybody who uses them into space using the Iraqi Supergun. Literature, Sport and music articles are absolutely flooded with them, and they are really, really difficult to resolve satisfactorily by anyone but a very specific subject expert with lots of experience of WP:DUE and a large university library at hand.

Would it be possible to have a rule that we need, like, 5 academic sources to use the word "greatest" before we can say things like "is considered the greatest [[ferret juggler]] Bolton has produced in the 21st century"? Boynamedsue (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:PUFFERY

We really won't make things better by accidentally creating a discussion fork. Please share your views at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:PUFFERY, instead of here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I keep trying to direct people to that discussion instead of forking it here. [sigh]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Onus

I wonder if the "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" needs to be clarified. When it says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content," I presume this is referring to adding disputed content. I have recently seen an editor remove sourced content and then appealing to WP:ONUS to keep it out. So I propose we clarify by replacing "include" with "add" so that it reads The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to add disputed content. StAnselm (talk) 19:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I have read the two most recent discussions on WP:ONUS (Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 68#WP:ONUS vs. WP:QUO and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 69#RfC: WP:ONUS) and I think this is by far the most elegant solution to a long-standing problem. StAnselm (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" is a core content policy. I don't agree that there is an implicit consensus for long-standing content that has not been specifically discussed. ONUS is fine as is. It does not need to be modified so you can win content disputes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

You may not agree, but that is, in fact, what WP:EDITCONSENSUS says: "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." StAnselm (talk) 19:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Therefore, because the edit has been disputed there is no consensus, presumed or otherwise. Polygnotus (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Ditto. This is effectively WP:Wikilawyering, if you actually want to resolve this content dispute, go to like NPOVN or something. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes it has been controversial, but those discussions have all ended with the current wording staying in place. So they're not a reason to make a change now. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

What you want is not a clarification, but a change. The people removing content always have an advantage over those adding it, which is a good thing because otherwise anyone can write anything and you'd need to spend a lot of time justifying removing it. This is why the rule was made that you have to justify including something; not the other way around. Polygnotus (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this, it's not a clarification, but a fundamental change in the policy, and one IMO that would ultimately be detrimental to Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 69#RfC: WP:ONUS, was overwhelmingly opposed to effectively the same proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. It sounds to me like it would create a barrier to editors who want to object to content, and a loophole helping editors who want to add disputed content. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

• No - The ONUS is on those who wish to add or keep disputed content. There are many reasons why sourced content might be questioned and challenged (perhaps it violates one of our other policies or guidelines, or perhaps it is trivial to the topic of the article, or perhaps it is better presented in some other article, etc). So… Those who wish to keep it must explain why the disputed content should be retained in the article. Remember, no one “owns” an article, and so others are free to come along and (partially or completely) rewrite it (and that rewrite may well omit things that were included in the previous version). Blueboar (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
• Regardless of the outcome, during discussion a "best practice" is to tag the disputed text and leave it in place. WP:QUO. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Nope; until there is a consensus it is best to get rid of it. We don't have a deadline, so leaving bad stuff in is worse than taking potentially good but disputed stuff out. It can return once there is consensus. WP:QUO is just an essay. Polygnotus (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, QUO is "just an essay." And your comment is the just opinion of one editor. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Turning to the substance of your remark, how do you know that the stuff is "bad" as opposed to "potentially bad but disputed" until a discussion takes place? Also, under your approach, how do you prevent edit warring during discussion? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

We had long conversations about this which died from exhaustion (or me dropping the ball and not creating a proposal as I said I would) IMO it conflicts with wp:Consensus, is totally out of place (what the heck does it have to do with wp:verifiability?) and probably is only there/ survived to emphasize the "does not guarantee inclusion" that it is coupled with, and doing a poor job at that. IMO we could fix all of these problems (plus a few more) by replacing "does not guarantee" and "onus" with "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" By slightly tipping the balance in two different opposite directions (removing verifiability as a way to coerce inclusion, and removing the wording favoring exclusion) the change would be pretty neutral on the inclusion/exclusion balance, and what gets in would be based more on its merits. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That is a solution in search of a problem. Polygnotus (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this might be a good idea. I think that ONUS isn't a blank check to remove whatever you want, because there is WP:PRESERVE. However I think ONUS was never meant for removing content that is well-sourced, but adding new content. That doesn't mean content can't be removed, but removing also needs a reason, not just I don't like it/ONUS. Andre🚐 05:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

ONUS is not just for newly added content. Any content that is disputed should be re-added only when there is consensus to do so. That is a very low bar and easy to achieve when the content is a good fit for inclusion of course. No one is using ONUS to just randomly remove content without any reason. Polygnotus (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes they do! I don't know in what areas you mostly edit Wikipedia but I have encountered this type of reasoning a lot (removing sourced content for various reasons and then arguing that the onus is on those who want to restore it to establish consensus). I would support North8000's rewording. Alaexis_¿question? 06:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Alaexis: You said "Yes they do!" in response to my "No one is using ONUS to just randomly remove content without any reason" but then you wrote "for various reasons". Which is it? If it is great content that should definitely be included; uncontroversial, neutral, balanced, well-written, non-promotional et cetera then why would someone remove it? There must be a reason. And if there isn't, then establishing consensus takes perhaps 20 seconds. Sounds like there was a reason, but you didn't agree with it, which means the content was disputed, which means its better out than in until there is consensus. Wikipedia would be a giant mess if you could just add whatever, but had to get consensus to remove stuff. Polygnotus (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

"No one is using ONUS to just randomly remove content without any reason" – I suppose the truth of this statement depends on whether you mean true randomness, and whether "I personally believe that Wikipedia is improved by containing less information" is a reason. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

What? People do that all the time! jp×g🗯️ 05:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I think @Polygnotus meant "no reason [at all]", and you may have read "no good reason". Someone who blanks half an article because other editors didn't drop everything to add citations fast enough for his taste, or because he thinks the subject is unimportant to the world, or because he thinks the writing style isn't very good, is not technically removing the content for "no reason". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone who removes content because they think the subject is unimportant to the world, or because they think the writing style isn't very good, isn't removing stuff randomly. Polygnotus (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I always thought the tension between ONUS and PRESERVE was a good thing, depending on the situation either is correct. These aren't laws, they don't have to internally consistent or entirely sensical (although laws aren't always those things).
Bad content should be removed, and any editor wanting to restore it should find consensus to do so. Good content that is flawed should be tagged and discussed before it is removed. What's the difference between good and bad content? Well that's in the eyes of editors.
Ultimately these policies are ideas that have consenus, and how they apply comes out of consesnus as well. If you just have two editors stating ONUS and PRESERVE use WP:3PO to see which one is right. If you disagree with the group consensus of which applies, well move on or take it to a noticeboard. If you can't convince the community you're right, then maybe it's time to accept your wrong.
There is no problem to be solved here, how or when certain policies applies is as defined by consesnus as the policy was defined by consesnus in the first place. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please remember that the section immediately after WP:PRESERVE is WP:DON'T PRESERVE. This will shed some light on when ONUS applies. Blueboar (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've entered a 16 day period with a mix of few or none wiki minutes including 9 days off the grid. I commented here because the thread came up but can't do much more such as a thorough response to the responses to my comment. Wikipedia 95% works and the other 5% is a eternal painful mess that hurts us in many ways. And IMHO policies and guidelines are the cause of and solution for most of the 5%. The wililawyer warrior's heaven of the urban legends that stem from wp:ver (that verifiability is a way to coerce inclusion) that the current section made a failed attempt to address and the wililawyer warrior's heaven of wp:onus are two of the most easily fixed areas regarding this. Folks can always cite the 95% as a reason to not fix the 5%. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

But folks will also always find 5% they disagree with, even if 95% of the time it's fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: I don't think "fine" is the right word in this context. Polygnotus (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

My point is that that point is what editors disagree upon. So no, other editors won't think fine is the right word. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: Yeah I was being silly, the word "fine" is roughly 5% of that sentence. So I was proving your point by disagreeing with you. Polygnotus (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I have to disagr.... ok enough -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say there was 5% content which people disagree with. I said that the other 5% is an eternal painful mess. As in filling the drama boards and arbcom with unsolvable problems, unnecessarily losing good editors etc. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

And I didn't mean content, but that editors don't agree what 5% is the problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that no one knows what ONUS means. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the point argued by ActivelyDisinterested above, and I think I disagree with Polygnotus. "ONUS abuse" is a real thing, though it should be discouraged. Andre🚐 17:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Surely I could edit this page with my proposal above and the onus is on those who favor the current wording to achieve consensus for their preferred version... StAnselm (talk) 19:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Except… WP:V does not apply to policy pages, and ONUS is part of the WP:V policy… so, no, you can’t apply ONUS to itself. On policy pages (especially CORE policy pages), we require consensus for ANY change - regardless of whether it is an addition, subtraction, or rewriting of text. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, you've got me there. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but you need a rationale. A revert citing simply "no consensus" is not valid or at least highly irregular and discouraged. I believe there is a sentence somewhere in policy that specifically says you cannot just revert an otherwise valid bold improvement or addition and say "get consensus for your edit first" absent any other reason. Andre🚐 19:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If there is it could, by its own wording, just be changed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan, I'm not sure that's actually in a policy, though the principle appears in other forms, e.g., as examples of WP:OWN behavior or in Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Deleting the pertinent cited additions of others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Blueboar, I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say but, to be clear, preapproval not required for changes to policy per wp:PGBOLD. See also wp:DRNC. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@StAnselm, if "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" feels confusing, do you think it would make more sense to say that "Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for including material in an article"? They're meant to mean the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

That would be en excellent improvement. You should make a specific proposal. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@North8000: Why do you think that would be an improvement? The reason for the subtle change in the wording (which does change the meaning no matter what WhatamIdoing says) is clearly not to make understanding the text easier (despite the claim to the contrary). It seems like the goal of the change to make wikilawyering easier for people who don't want to justify the stuff they've written... Polygnotus (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd also be opposed to linking a mathematical concept. Policies aren't logic puzzles that need to be solved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it's a half way version (1/2 is better than nothing) of the ideal fix which would be to change it all to "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion" . I could write a book on all of the problems that that would fix and things that it would improve but unfortunately have very few wikiminutes until Oct 6 and will be off the grid for much of that period. North8000 (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

And if the requirement was removed I could write a thousand books on the problems it would cause. Honestly the problem here seems to be editors potentially misusing ONUS. The solution to that is not to water down to nothing an important statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair, but what is the way to ensure that ONUS serves the purpose. ONUS is similar to the "burden of proof." Sometimes, your burden is one hand, but there are exceptions. For example, I write an article about a politician and obtain consensus to add something about a prominent scandal in the lead section. Several years later someone comes along and removes that material saying "UNDUE". I restore it, citing that it's verifiable, referenced, relevant, and no reason was offered to remove it according to policy. They remove it again and say "ONUS is on you to obtain consensus to restore it." A discussion on the talk page is joined by 2 other users and nobody emerges to defend the content. We're now memory-holing the content even if there was a well-attended RFC with hundreds of users that came to a strong decision 3 years ago. We need to play the long game and remember that AGF doesn't mean ignore it when the system exhibits a failure mode. Andre🚐 22:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Then you restore it citing PRESERVE, in the discussion you bring up the RFC and post neutral notifications to any relevant boards or projects. If after all that that there is still consensus to remove the content, well consensus can change. Not accepting that consensus can change starts to sound like stonewalling.

As my comment said these issues should be worked out by discussion and consenus, not by removing a policy so that it's easier to win an argument. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is seriously proposing to "remove a policy". I think there is some justification in having the onus blurb in a different location (and people are suggesting that), as you say it is really about consensus and discussion (I would add editing, too), not verifiability per se. Selfstudier (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If it's moved to consensus, then a link to WP:CONSENSUS would still be appropriate. If not then ONUS would no longer exist in its current state. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I just think that the system needs stopgaps to protect good faith contributors from failure modes that are asynchronous. I don't think it's a given that protecting a past consensus against drive-by changes is always stonewalling. My point is that ONUS isn't a blank check, which I think we agree on. To the extent that it affects verifiability: I guess my point is that really all edits need consensus and all edits need proper sourcing and evidence. ONUS says the responsibility is on someone adding content. Why isn't there an equal ONUS on someone removing material (assuming it's otherwise verifiable and policy-abiding)? Why isn't it that a consensus is needed to deviate from the status quo if that status quo has suitable precedent and consensus on its side (not talking about cases where it doesn't) Andre🚐 15:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Well I can answer the question: "Why isn't there an equal ONUS on someone removing material". It is because people post an neverending tsunami of crap on Wikipedia, and having to get consensus for removing even just 10% of it makes keeping Wikipedia usable impossible for those who fix the problems caused by others. Polygnotus (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about removing long-standing content which already had a consensus for its inclusion, ie the status quo or the before state of a discussion/RFC Andre🚐 15:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

To me its weird to see people defend the status quo; as if everything on Wikipedia is perfect. Spend an hour doing recent changes patrol and you'll hate change. Spend an hour reading existing articles (excluding GA/FA/botgenerated stubs) and doing some factchecking and you'll hate the status quo. Depends on the topic of course; mathematicians are usually excellent Wikipedians. The "consensus" because no one fixed a problem yet comes often from obscurity or our lack of people willing to fix the problems caused by others. Writing stuff is far more "glamorous" than reading stuff other people wrote and comparing the statements in the article to the sources, trying to fix the typos and removing the cruft/puffery/selfpromo/bias/pov/misinformation. I doubt there are people who remove long-standing nonbiased npov reliably sourced perfect-in-every-way content and use ONUS to do it without giving a reason. And I am not sure why people who arent povpushers would pretend such a problem exists. But, I am willing to learn. Polygnotus (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You can see an example of a recent discussion where content was removed and ONUS was cited, and there was a disagreement on the interpretation of sources, see here, while I cited PRESERVE. This does happen periodically. It is definitely the case that there are differences of opinion on some content's relevance, and that some people try to remove certain material citing UNDUE or claims like "this section is overly detailed, too long and needs to be trimmed" etc (not quoting anyone specific). Andre🚐 17:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

And again changing policy because you don't like it use in a discussion, is not a good reason to change policy. There was health discussion there and consensus resolved the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really saying the policy needs to be changed, but if it is changed, it should be changed to strengthen the status quo and not strengthen the use of ONUS to challenge edits for no otherwise good reason, that is my humble and not at all strong opinion. Andre🚐 20:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

But this example is about Trump. Of course its gonna be a battleground. ONUS did nothing to make that situation worse or better. "challenge edits for no otherwise good reason" It was a Trump supporter they will challenge any edit that makes Trump look bad whether its true or not. This is a problem with the fragile American democracy and public school system. It has nothing to do with ONUS. If it was the other way around and you used ONUS to remove content that praised Trump you would like ONUS. ONUS does not give you the right to challenge any edits without a reason. Good or not is in the eye of the beholder of course. Polygnotus (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Without commenting on the views of any particular editors, who at least in theory are supposed to not let their opinions affect editorial decisions, I generally don't think ONUS should be a reason on its own to remove content, even that content was something I didn't agree with or like. I think removing content itself should have a good rationale. And I don't see why that shouldn't be an explicit guideline. PRESERVE, sort of implies this. Andre🚐 20:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You are making the same mistake republicans make. You create a reality in which ONUS is "a reason on its own to remove content" (by repeatedly claiming that it is, or is used as such), even though it is not, and then you complain about something that does not exist. "I think removing content itself should have a good rationale. And I don't see why that shouldn't be an explicit guideline." We call removing content for shits and giggles vandalism, and people who do it get blocked. Wikipedia:Vandalism : "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense" is a type of vandalism. This is policy, a step above a guideline. Polygnotus (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If User:Example is randomly deleting stuff, and gives no rationale whatsoever except perhaps "WP:ONUS" please report them on WP:ANI and they will be dealt with. Polygnotus (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Haha, alright. Point taken. Andre🚐 21:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we should distinguish between content that was added a while back and never challenged vs content that was previously challenged. I view that as the difference between implicit consensus and explicit consensus. When anything is added and both not challenged and not removed it has implicit consensus. If it's challenged (or explicitly supported by others) and consensus is established for the content to remain then, in my view, ONUS has been addressed and we now need consensus to change/remove. So I think Andrevan and I are in agreement here. Springee (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Wow Springee, glad to hear we agree, I feel like that doesn't happen too often but I always appreciate it when it does. :-) Andre🚐 17:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Something else I would add is that text that was immediately challenged and not removed (yet no clear consensus was reached to keep it) ought to lack implicit consensus. This is perhaps slightly counterintuitive (it was examined and somehow managed to stay, after all) but it's important because otherwise we end up encouraging people to edit-war to "prevent" something from gaining implicit consensus. If an editor can say "I object to that, but don't have the time to hash it out now" then that encourages article stability without leading to situations where contested text gains a false sense of consensus just because one side in a dispute became exhausted or gave up. I think WP:SILENCE talks about this - once someone has objected, going silent doesn't necessarily mean their objection is gone; in the absent of a clear-cut consensus the other way, it just puts the dispute on hold. --Aquillion (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think that is reasonable. Springee (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed, and I've seen this come up several times, especially when there is a two-editor tagteam pushing, at an article with nearly no watchlisters, a personal preference that clearly conflicts with one or more guidelines or policies. They can sometimes effectively enforce their will literally for years, though in the end it of course is not possible for their version to have consensus, because the guideline or policy it contradicts is already a site-wide consensus against it, and WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN are also policy and do not permit one or a handful of editors to make up their own "anti-rule" on a per-topic basis and force other editors to obey it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

ONUS - a different idea

• I think the problem with ONUS is really just the final sentence: “The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content”.

I happen to agree with what it says, but I think the WP:V policy is the wrong venue in which to say it. A statement on who is responsible for achieving consensus belongs in the WP:Consensus policy.

The rest of the paragraph (the part I associate with the shortcut VNOT) does fit in the WP:V policy. It is a useful reminder that verifiability isn’t enough to guarantee inclusion.

So… I would propose that, for now, we simply move the ONUS sentence to WP:CONSENSUS … and then examine how best to say it (or even whether we should say it) within the context of that policy. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Bad idea. It is in the place where it belongs. Polygnotus (talk) 12:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The reason it is where it is, is because people defended the stuff they wrote by saying it is verifiable. They used WP:V as a magic shield against all criticism. The sentence has little to do with consensus. People who read the verifiability policy need to be told that just because something is verifiable, it does not mean it should therefore be on Wikipedia. What you see as the problem with ONUS is not a problem. It is the solution to a problem. Polygnotus (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

need to be told that just because something is verifiable, it does not mean it should therefore be on Wikipedia Then we should just tell them that and not dress it up as something else.Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: What do you mean? Polygnotus (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

What I just said. And there is no need to ping me. Selfstudier (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Who or what is dressing what up as something else? Polygnotus (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The bit I don't understand is: "Then we should just tell them that and not dress it up as something else" Polygnotus (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Replace the current sentence with (something like) what you said, is that clearer? Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

We can add "Just because something is verifiable, it does not mean it should therefore be on Wikipedia" to that policy, but it cannot replace the current sentence: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" because those sentences have a different meaning. Like I explained above, the sentence that is currently there is a solution to a big problem (people using WP:V (and verifiability in general) as a magic shield against all criticism). Polygnotus (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Part of the existing sentence is in the wrong place, I agree with Blueboar on that. Selfstudier (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? Which part? Polygnotus (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The part that I said to replace with your sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

But why? What I wrote is easier to understand, but it also means something completely different. The policies on Wikipedia were forged in fire and written in blood. A lot of time and effort has been spent to get to the point we are now. Polygnotus (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Take a look back at how that sentence got there. You say the problem is that people useV as a shield, so I agree with that, just tell people that they can't do that. Then editing and consensus are something else nothing to do with V. Selfstudier (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It does not make sense to rip that last sentence out of its context. Read the lines previous to it. They are not complete without the last line, and the last line on its own lacks context. Polygnotus (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about the principle, not the precise wording. As an example of possible wording, another editor at one point suggested "Replace that entire 3 sentence paragraph with "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion"". Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It already says: "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included". And the reason that is not going to happen is that people will use WP:V as a magic shield again. It is really hard to improve something that is so battletested as a Wikipedia policy. Polygnotus (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I have said my piece. Just so we are clear, I agree with Blueboar (and I suspect, some others) and I don't think your objection is valid. Selfstudier (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not think ONUS should be moved to CONSENSUS because I think that strengthens ONUS' use as a catchall to say for any given sentence in the article, that it must demonstrate an affirmative consensus. The status quo isn't discussed much in policy. I think the status quo should be even stronger than it is. As the project has grown and become more prominent, we have needed more stability and protection, whether NPP, stable/flagged revisions, patrolled, etc (see my essay WP:DAQ which predates many of the aforementioned technical features and social features of Wikipedia, sorry for the retro-self-plug). Anyway, I think moving ONUS to CONSENSUS makes it seem more like ONUS can just be invoked for IDONTLIKEIT or IDHT. Which IS a real problem, throughout many of the sensitive and contentious topic areas: people removing stuff that is verifiable. The point of ONUS is that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion: agreed there. But a BOLD removal of long-standing content that is reverted, for legitimate rationale and in active discussion on the talk page or RFC, defaults to the status quo. So in my view, policy should have more protection for the stable state that had obtained consensus. Consensus is hard to obtain at times in contentious areas, and it's an abuse of process to simply start a new discussion again and again until you get the result you want. Andre🚐 14:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The point of ONUS is that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion - no. THAT is the point of VNOT.

I know because I was the person who originally wrote that first part of the paragraph. The ONUS sentence (about who should achieve consensus) was added by someone else… and originally appeared in a completely different part of the policy. Then a third person merged VNOT and ONUS (I assume they did so because both mention the word “consensus”). I have never been happy with that merger. Blueboar (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I forget where it is, there is a diff somewhere showing that the current wording was added with a pretty low conlevel, in which case I find it fascinating that many are arguing quo when, by ONUS' own terms, disputed content should be removed :) Selfstudier (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

That's been tried and yet it still stands. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Btw, the most recent discussion of all this (there have been many and there will continue to be until it is resolved, methinks) was here where we nearly but did not quite manage to agree on a draft RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason that the principle expressed in ONUS cannot appear elsewhere in addition to the Verification page. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There is some confusion regarding what principle ONUS expresses. See this discussion. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

And there have been other discussions on the issue that have found no problem. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is confusion, even among experienced Admins who think it prohibits removal of content. SPECIFICO talk 16:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there really confusion or is there some level of WP:IDNHT going on here? They don't seem to be confused, they seem to disagree with and refuse to conform to consensus which is an entirely different thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That may be technically a difference, but the fix for it is the same (especially since, per WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS, we are not really permitted to speculate on whether someone is doing something for disruptive motivations; we're supposed to just address the effect on the content and, if it becomes disruptive, address an identifiable behavior pattern). The fix is: clarify the wording to remove any possibility of wikilawyering and perception of a loophole or wiggle room, so that the divergence from consensus can no longer be defended, whether it is motivated by genuine confusion or by defiance. This is something we deal with all the time across our WP:P&G, and the solution is always to tighten the wording (but without adding new rules to address individual "little defiances"; see WP:AJR, an application of the WP:CREEP principle).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it even possible to produce a wording which would "remove any possibility of wikilawyering"? And if so does even a single such wording exist in the entirety of Wikipedia? To me the wording here is already extremely clear, I don't see a single person who is misinterpreting it... I only see people who disagree with it and I don't think that any change to the wording is going to address their fundamental disagreement with the consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You're making by point for me, lawyering about wording choices and alternative reductio ad absurdum interpretations of them, instead of focusing on the meaning and intent of my content (which was clear but casual, obviously meaning "removing as much potential for wikilawyering as is reasonably possible", but which I did not carefully engineer to be gaming-proof). It simply bolsters my point that WP:Policy writing is hard and that the wording in it needs to be as air-tight as possible or people will attempt to game their way around it. You are not offering any solution, just "It won't work! I throw up my hand and quit!" denialism. Not interesting or constructive. Identify exactly what wording in the current material is being misinterpreted and misrepresented, and adjust it to make it no longer reasonable to even attempt to miscast it that way, and the problem disappears. Those with "their fundamental disagreement with the consensus" will be left with no choice but a straightforward WP:PROPOSAL to substantively change the meaning of the policy (which is not likely to succeed). What you're missing here is that it has nothing to do with whether or not those mis-spinning the policy really believe it means what they say it means, only whether they can get away with spinning it that way and still be taken as acting with competence and in good faith. Take away that blanket to hide under.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure how you got there from what I said... If I can restate with great brevity: there is nothing wrong with the wording, all issues are behavioral and can only be addressed as such. If that means some admins get the hammer then pass the sledge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes changing the wording makes it harder to claim that the policy says something different. For example: Have you ever seen a serious dispute about whether Wikipedia:Copyright violations are acceptable? It doesn't happen, because the policy is both clear and also absolute. If the answer is absolute (e.g., copyvios are banned without exception), and we're getting disputes, then we might be able to reduce the number of disputes by re-writing.

We will, on the other hand, always have disputes over what constitutes DUE weight between two competing viewpoints, because that will always require editors to use their best judgment. Clear writing can't solve all the problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against adding the wording to CONSENSUS while maintaining it here. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Homework

If we are interested in pursuing this _yet again_ : Somebody with programming skills could make a flow chart that identifies the permutations and real world paths in which ONUS is cited, where it works, where it breaks down. E.G.

is content verified? are there multiple high quality RS per WEIGHT? are they news sources? were they contemporaneous sources that are no longer current? Has the content recently been added to the article? Was the content previously challenged? Does the page have more than 50 watchers? Was the content discussed on the article talk page Was there explicit consensus on the talk page Has the content been in the article for 3 months? Has the article been edited by 20 different editors since the content was added?

I'm sure these are not all the right nodes and maybe not good statements of each fork, but we ought to be able to enumerate and state all the relevant factors and break down the areas of agreement and disagreement in operational terms that relate to the actual editing situations that arise. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should, the decision should be made page by page by discussion and consenus not here amongst a small subset of editors and imposed project wide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In the end it will be only the less than a handful of people who apparently dislike ONUS because someone who they disagreed with used it once (and cannot comprehend its value) who talk among themselves while everyone else gave up. Then they will declare that consensus has been achieved by boring everyone who doesn't care as much. Polygnotus (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If any change were to be made, it'd have to be publicized in an RFC placed prominently on community village pumps, announcement noticeboards, signpost articles, etc etc to make sure it was not just a local consensus from a few wonks and nerds who like arcane stuff. Andre🚐 20:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think Specifico's point is well-taken that we should find out some examples of when ONUS has been invoked over the years, and what those circumstances were. I've seen ONUS invoked on at least 2 occasions that I thought it was standing in for any actual policy rationale. I'm not sure I've ever seen ONUS used when I thought it was shedding some meaningful light on the situation - does anyone have one? Andre🚐 20:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Andre. I think that all of these past discussions -- each of which may have failed in its own special way -- suffer from too abstract an approach that doesn't start from a common understanding of what problem, if any, needs to be solved. A flowchart would identify specific situations for which the language or placement of policy needs to be improved. We'd first need to workshop the nodes. I just threw down examples without much reflection. SPECIFICO talk 22:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Since someone asked for examples above, here (more discussion here) is another example of how the current wording of ONUS causes misinterpretations that lead to problems. A single editor objected to a sentence that had been longstanding and stable on an extremely high-traffic article for roughly eight years; they edit-warred to remove it repeatedly, constantly citing WP:ONUS (and little else) on talk. Even in the face of multiple editors saying it should stay, they seem to have concluded that it was not sufficient consensus, asserting that they would continue to come back and remove it because of ONUS. Obviously they misinterpreted multiple policies, but this sort of trainwreck is the result of a casual misreading of the final sentence of ONUS giving people the perception that they can just sort of cite it as an "I WIN" policy in any situation where they're trying to remove something from an article. This isn't what the section in question is or was ever intended to be, it doesn't lead to useful or constructive conversations, and it actively derails actual consensus-building by giving one side in disputes the false misapprehension that they have no responsibility to seek any sort of consensus themselves as long as they can cite ONUS over and over. The wording needs to be changed somehow; it reflects neither actual practice nor sound policy. The version of it that people who take the most expansive possible reading of it wish for does not and has never had consensus and the text needs to make that clear. --Aquillion (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Remember that “consensus can change”. Some bit of material might have once had a consensus to include/exclude, and yet not have that consensus NOW. It is perfectly acceptable to question or challenge a previous consensus to see if it still exists. Blueboar (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The post you respond to says the edit warring party was "constantly citing WP:ONUS (and little else)." It is not perfectly acceptable to challenge material with a substance-free "prove it to me" argument. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Aquillion and Butwhatdoiknow. Andre🚐 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If the problem is ONUS being used to edit war, then change it so it only applies after a discussion has run its course, not during the discussion. i.e., follow WP:QUO and WP:BRD until the discussion is done. Then there's no incentive to bring substance-free arguments or be disruptive. DFlhb (talk) 16:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Andre🚐 16:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This is another case of an editor edit warring, but such behaviour isn't just an issue for ONUS. I would support mentioning WP:QUO and WP:BRD, but such statements apply for all edit warring. If the example above had been one editor trying to WP:PRESERVE content, and multiple other editors reverting them then the same discussions would apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• But per WP:QUO (and common practice), after a discussion has run its course with no consensus, the longstanding version usually remains, outside of a few situations like WP:BLP or situations where someone can clearly show that a longstanding version lacked even implicit consensus. This has been one of the major disputes over ONUS. I don't disagree with your proposal as long as QUO applies as it always has, but this would completely defang the sweeping interpretation of ONUS that some people want, since it would mean, as a practical matters, that it usually only applies to new additions. Also, for genuinely new additions we usually do leave them out after an objection until things are resolved, although there's no hard-and-fast rule. --Aquillion (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  ONUS shouldn't only apply to only new text, the flaw with that argument is that an editor could put unnoticed text into an article and the claim "silent" consensus later. My comment on PREVERSE wasn't in regard to new content, but about retaining content in opposition to multiple other editors.

  The issue here, and when editors edit war for the opposite, is that it's usually one editor trying to force a situation against many others. The solution would seem to be changing the edit warring wording to discuss such situations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  As I said, it is not only new text; the crux of implicit consensus is that the text has been seen (and often edited) by many people, so if they can demonstrate that the text was unnoticed (eg. because the article or that section is low-traffic) then they can show that it has no consensus. But they have a burden to do that, when removing longstanding text - once there's a clear dispute, someone who wants to remove well-established text does have some responsibility to show that it has never had consensus; or, if it has some degree of consensus, they must then demonstrate a consensus to remove. Both these things are to some degree actively occluded by ONUS, which makes people falsely believe that when arguing for removal they can push the entire burden of demonstrating consensus on people who want to retain text, and which falsely leads them to think that removals almost never require consensus. Clearly, they do; once there is a dispute over an edit, everyone must seek consensus - only in the most trivial of cases can you make a significant and clearly-disputed change to an article, including a removal, "by default" in the absent of a consensus. WP:QUO more or less covers this; if there's a dispute over well-established text, and people fail to reach a consensus, the default is the status quo, not removal. (This is, as an aside, part of what constantly baffles me about discussions concerning ONUS and well-established text. An RFC that fails to reach a consensus defaults to the status quo, never to removal. Every established editor knows this fact. The "default to removal" interpretation of ONUS that people argue is not and has never been practice. Hence my explanation for why DFlhb's proposed solution would effectively defang ONUS, because QUO instructs us to default to retaining disputed text.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  QUO, by its text, specifically applies "during discussion." Maybe you're thinking of WP:NOCON. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Getting deja vu here :) Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Right; I worded that carefully. DFlhb (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Sure, but in that situation the burden is on the person who wants to make the change or removal to demonstrate that consensus has changed. WP:ONUS definitely doesn't allow you to just assert that a consensus may have changed and demand that other people show that it still exists or you're going to remove something. The heart of the disputes over ONUS are basically - when can someone argue that they have no obligation to demonstrate anything at all, pushing the ball entirely into someone else's court? And for CCC, it's not like that; the person who wants to remove something that previously had consensus has to demonstrate the change in consensus to remove it (or point to something like WP:BLP that shifts things to defaulting to removal, but that requires engaging on the merits and not just repeatedly saying ONUS.) I don't think non-engagement is something we should encourage at all outside of the most trivial circumstances for recent additions or ones that haven't had many eyes on them, but you definitely can't combine ONUS with CCC. --Aquillion (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Non-engagement is covered by WP:COMMUNICATE, WP:ONUS doesn't give an editor any right to not engage.

  Editors should not have to find consensus to remove obviously wrong content. The issue here, again and again, is edit warring. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

If there is no dispute over whether it is "obviously wrong", then naturally they can remove it. But if there is a dispute, then it is not obviously wrong. In that case they must go to talk, explain why they think it's wrong, and work to obtain consensus for their proposed change. They should not attempt major changes to the article (including removals) without that consensus. It is sometimes possible to demonstrate that the text in question never had consensus in the first place (especially for very new text) but they bear some of the responsibility to do so, especially for more longstanding text - they cannot simply presume that it lacks consensus, nor can they simply say "the ONUS is on you, I'm going to remove this until you show it has consensus." The presumption for longestanding text on high-traffic articles (that is to say, text that we can assume people have regularly seen) is that it has consensus. It is a rebuttable presumption but you must actually work to rebut it, you cannot simply cite ONUS over and over as some people attempt to do. --Aquillion (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Longstanding isn't the point, that just means no one saw it to object to it. With so many articles text could stand for years, silent consensus only has any standing as long as noone objects to it then it has no standing whatsoever. Also minor amounts or major amounts doesn't change the issue, major amounts of trash should be removed as much as minor amounts. Editors shouldn't presume content has consensus.

No, editors shouldn't edit war or refuse to communicate. But your list of editors behaving poorly and using ONUS for the basis, is matched by a list of editors behaving poorly and using PRESERVE to maintain OR, synth, POV, etc.

If an editor removes content because they feel it's problematic they have to say why it's problematic, and ONUS isn't a recognised exception to 3RR. If the situation descends into reverts whether the content should be maintained or removed is something to work out on a case by case basis. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Established text certainly does sometimes have a consensus, and sometimes does therefore require a clear consensus to remove; the exact threshold and whether or how it applies to specific text is complicated and requires case-by-case adjudication, I agree, but the current wording of ONUS fails to capture that nuance. With that said, would you object to the last sentence of your reply replacing the last sentence of ONUS, then? Something like If there is a dispute over whether an edit has consensus, that should be worked out on a case by case basis to replace The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content? That would address my concerns completely. Certainly that sentence of ONUS is not the only badly-written part of policy (I agree that PRESERVE is also sometimes misused, and would be happy to focus on any proposed fixes to it once we've replaced the problematic sentence in ONUS) but that's no reason not to fix it; as it is, it absolutely does encourage both edit-warring and failure to communicate, since it gives some editors the false belief that they can automatically assume that something lacks consensus and that they have no responsibility to engage and demonstrate that fact. If they have a responsibility to engage, and if a dispute resulting from that is best decided by determining consensus and by consensus-building on a case-by-case basis, which both parties have to participate in, then the current last sentence of ONUS doesn't actually mean anything and serves only to lead editors who rely on it astray - you seem to be agreeing that the ONUS in a disputed removal falls on both parties and not just one. --Aquillion (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with that exact wording. That content requires consensus needs strong backing. The issue is that two editors can't resolve the PRESERVE / DONTPRESERVE debate, but only in the most contenious can multiple editors fail to resolve the issue.

Something like the following sentences could be added without removing the final sentence.

But whether the content is preserved or excluded until a consensus is formed should be determined on a case by case basis.

This policy is not an accepted exception to rules about edit warring.

This should not be used as a reason to remove content.

With appropriate wordsmithing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally ok with most of the directions this is going in. Most anything would help toward explaining ONUS better. As Aquillion has pointed out, ONUS is a description of how consensus works, and is not supposed to itself be a blank check. The point of ONUS is that "consensus is always required" which is to say that if someone BOLDly does something, and it is reverted, don't edit war: discuss, and reach consensus. How? That's case-dependent, but, don't just keep reverting or keep on trying to sneak your change back in. Discuss. That's the point of ONUS. The burden of someone making a change is to explain why, be that change a removal, or an addition, or a copyedit, if it's disputed by another editor, seek the discussion board to hash it out. In cases where there's no agreement, WP:QUO and WP:PRESERVE tell us that existing, policy-abiding, content, with no consensus to remove or delete it, is protected for inclusion if it had a historical consensus for being included. Historical consensus could have been a bold addition that was kept by many editors implicitly, or it could be a formal consensus found in a process. It doesn't have to always be the same thing. So I think we can explain this practice better. Andre🚐 22:03, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree completely with this (and with AD's 3rd sentence). 'If it's been there for a long enough time, it stays' is equivalent to deprecating ONUS.

edit: I should clarify: I agree completely with the first half, disagree with the second half. Happy to support suggestions that will get people to properly make their case though DFlhb (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Well I respect your opinion and your edits (I think, forgive me, I sometimes confuse the editors with some characters like yours that don't appear phonetic), why do you disagree that ONUS itself isn't a valid reason to remove content? Isn't that just "IDONTLIKEIT" in another name? "This new content doesn't have a consensus. It should be removed." Invalid. Right? Andre🚐 23:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, I don't see it as a valid reason to remove content; actual arguments need to be presented.

ONUS does two things. First it dispels the notion that silent consensus has weight, or, rephrased, that affirmative consensus is needed to remove something added with no consensus and never discussed (I agree with Springee 16:09, 21 September and replies beneath). That helps with stonewalling. When bad edit falls through the cracks, get scrutinised by no one, and when it's caught it's "too late", that's not in keeping with the spirit of collaborative editing. Accessorily, ONUS combined with VNOT is a good policy-based avenue to resist recentism, and the notion of "we can't remove it, it's sourced" which I've heard too many times in non-ECP articles. That scenario's not only about old content; people edit-war to reinstate hours-old content, and in that sense ONUS also helps support BRD.

None of the value I see in ONUS overlaps with "I don't need to make arguments" (I'd look down on that), so I'm sure there's a way to thread this. If Aquillion's diff was representative of the way I saw people use ONUS, I'd dislike it too.

BTW thanks :) DFlhb (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Consider this scenario. 4 editors, all extended confirmed, edit war on an article. After the edit war has stopped simmering, editor A boldly adds material to the article. Editor B reverts it. Editor C reverts editor A and claims that their discussion on the talk page, supports the consensus to retain the content, as it is relevant and encyclopedic. Editor D leaves a comment ambiguous, but probably could be read supporting including the content. Editor B leaves a comment probably supports removing it. The conversation dies down and the content sits in the article for 2 years, let's say. Then a new editor comes along and says "ONUS." Editor B says "yes, ONUS. This content never had a consensus to begin with." Andre🚐 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

So editors A, C, and (kinda) D support inclusion, and B opposes. That's slim consensus, not overwhelming, but still a consensus; it wasn't "never discussed". DFlhb (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify my third point is that it's not in itself a reason to remove content, but it is a reason to revert the re-inclusion of content.

For example:

1). Content is removed for reason 'x'

2). Content is restored without resolving 'x'

3). Content is removed per ONUS -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense then, I misread that - DFlhb (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

After reading your comment I realised the third sentence was ambiguous. Any suggestions on better wording would be welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Another question; above, people asked for examples of where the last sentence of ONUS led to or exacerbated conflicts. But can anyone point to cases where the last sentence, in particular, has been used successfully to resolve conflicts? Not the "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" part, but cases where someone successfully cited the final sentence of ONUS to argue that someone else had the responsibility to demonstrate consensus and it, for lack of a better word, went well. I have personally never seen that happen - in my experience seeing someone citing that is usually an indication that discussions have already or are about to go to hell. --Aquillion (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Springee cited ONUS recently in a way that was somewhat conciliatory and de-escalatory. Believe that one or not! :-) Andre🚐 22:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

  Clearly you are thinking of someone else ;) Springee (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's thousands of uses within the summary of the third revert by the third different editor of a POV warrior in an uncountable number of articles. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Here is another example of an editor abusing WP:ONUS in a way that derails discussions. They WP:BOLDly removed a lead sentence that had been stable in the lead of a high-traffic article for three years, where the lead had been subject to extensive discussion and scrutiny; in the face of three other editors objecting (when they were, so far, the only editor who had advocated removing it), they nonetheless cited WP:ONUS to argue that the sentence in question needed to stay out of the article until, I guess, they were WP:SATISFYed or a formal RFC was held, since the existing objections were clearly not enough for them. They continued to do so even when the number of objections ticked up to five! This is the sort of thing that shows the problems caused by the current wording of ONUS - it leads to situations where individual editors mistakenly believe that they can make changes to longstanding, stable, high-traffic articles and then WP:STONEWALL them in place in defiance of WP:BRD and even basic consensus-building; and it encourages editors to be intransigent about recognizing that their changes lack consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's the exact same guy. Please bring those concerns to the appropriate noticeboards. DFlhb (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Aquillion, don't forget to link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive352#Block review: Willbb234 if you decide to follow up on this.

  More generally, "if I don't agree, it's not actually consensus" is a problem that can sometimes be solved through education about Wikipedia:How to lose, but it might be more frequently addressed with the block button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• I don't appreciate this discussion taking place behind my back. I don't think it's very fair. Anyway, in response to the comments regarding the discussion at Talk:Transgender, I will summarise what happened:
  • I removed content for one reason
  • It was reinstated without the issue being resolved
  • I initiated discussion
  • When this stalled, I referred to ONUS as those wishing to include the content need to find consensus.
• This seems very much like the general course of action outlined by ActivelyDisinterested above and very much unlike what Aquillion claimed happened - constantly citing WP:ONUS (and little else) on talk. (I'm unsure where you got that impression). I never used ONUS as the sole justification for removing content. You also failed to mention that consensus ended up being in my favour, but I guess that doesn't meet with your objectives here. You're welcome to disagree with what I have to say, but please don't lie about me and my actions behind my back. Willbb234 23:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  AFAICT, that second bullet point should read "It was reinstated without any other editors agreeing that the thing I dislike is actually a problem". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a shame we couldn't have had a constructive discussion here, or that you couldn't have assumed good faith, or that you couldn't have apologised about your actions. Then again, I didn't really expect much else. Willbb234 17:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

A new suggestion re ONUS

Would editors agree with the section being reworked so that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content is maintained but:
a). Include a warning that this is not an exception to 3RR.
b). Whether the content is preserved or excluded until a consensus is formed should be determined on a case by case basis.
c). ONUS isn't an initial reason to remove content.
The wording on that last point is poor. As per my earlier example:
1). Content is removed for reason 'x'
2). Content is restored without resolving 'x'
3). Content is removed per ONUS
In the example 'x', the initial reason for removal, can't be ONUS.
This would all be open to proper wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Anything that might prevent the endless discussions about this, I would support. Selfstudier (talk) 13:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, though all editors are expected to engage constructively. DFlhb (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Ultimately, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. For a best practice during discussion, see WP:QUO. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A first attempt at a rewrite. Note I dropped the sentence Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article as it in part duplicates the "preserved or excluded" part added later.

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Whether the content is preserved or excluded from the article while finding that consensus, should be handled on a case by case basis. Note this is not an allowed exception to the policy on edit warring.

I still have no good way to make the point about initial reasons for removal, which I think is important to solve the cases of ONUS abuse. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I think this tries to address too many things and is too complicated. Any high-profile policy gets abused. The problem is battleground mindset; a civility reminder addresses that and makes it easier to sanction people if they misuse it. Keep in mind this'll probably go to RfC so the simpler the better. DFlhb (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally supportive of the proposals. Andre🚐 21:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to think of good phrasing for this but nothing came to me. In theory ONUS pauses the, if you will, consensus clock. So just as NOCON shouldn't be used as a justification for a first revert of newly added material, ONUS should be used as a justification for material that is otherwise part of the stable article. NOCON does reference QUO so that might be acceptable here though I think ONUS would, logically, favor remove first, restore only if consensus is met. While NOCON suggests returning to the stable version of the article absent consensus, ONUS suggests the opposite if the material has been around for a while (if it's new then returning to status quo gives the same result as ONUS suggests). However, for edit warring reasons going slow is always a good idea but since QUO and ONUS may be seen as conflicting I'm not sure it's a good reference. I was trying to think of a way to deal with the "ONUS as the justification" issue. Something like, "ONUS establishes who should seek consensus for a change but the justification for removal of content should be based on other aspects of VERIFY or other Wikipedia policies such as NPOV, BLP, etc." I'm trying to say "Don't edit war, have a reason for removal other than ONUS, don't be an ass." with more official sounding language. Springee (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Could all this be solved by changing:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
to
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to restore disputed content?

Maybe also linking "omitted" in Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. to WP:DONTPRESERVE, which discusses reasons why content might be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No, that doesn't solve the underlying issue. To me, the core problem is exemplified in the misuse of ONUS I just linked above - an individual editor, with no reason to think they have consensus, should not feel that policy supports them in removing a longstanding sentence from the lead of a high-traffic, high-scrutiny article in the face of multiple editors objecting. That is a WP:BOLD edit and WP:BRD applies; it ought to be restored at the first objection, and remain in the article during discussion, because the lead of an article like that (where every sentence has had people going over it with a fine-toothed comb) is presumed to have consensus. These are the sorts of things that I see constantly - an individual editor makes an edit to a high-traffic lead that is the result of extensive discussion and consensus-building; because these things are complex, it's hard to cite a specific discussion for any individual sentence, so they cite WP:ONUS, and continue to hammer it until / unless an actual RFC is held, regardless of the level of objections. That interpretation of ONUS is unworkable because it doesn't align with the way that most consensus is formed. In fact, the issue above (where the editor continued to cite ONUS even after roughly five people argued for restoration and only they were arguing for removal), while extreme, is an inevitable result of that, because the subtext of that interpretation of ONUS is that only the most unambiguous forms of consensus-building actually "count". "It was longstanding text in the lead of a high-traffic article" is weak consensus; a quick nose-count in a discussion is weak consensus. But those weak consensuses still need to actually have force (enough force to overcome ONUS) or we end up in situations where any editor (this includes, like in the discussion above, well-meaning ones who simply think that they're right) who misinterprets ONUS the way some people above have can effectively cause any discussion where they're arguing for a removal to drag out tortuously long unless someone is willing to just bluntly tell them their interpretation of ONUS is wrong and ignore it. Once even a weak consensus is demonstrated, the ONUS shifts to the people arguing for removal to dispel that weak consensus, show that it has changed, or demonstrate a stronger one for removal; the current wording of ONUS (while it doesn't contradict this) has this one-sided vibe that makes people think they can ignore that. That's what needs to be corrected. --Aquillion (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

All this would suggest result in fringe/pov warriors being able to maintain their text, and endless discussions/RFCs that waster editors time to get rid of it. You've shown a few editors who are abusing ONUS, but seemingly ignore the many benefits it has. Only some kind of comprising is going to bridge the gap. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

So, I agree with Aquillion that this is a classic example of "ONUS abuse" and this is far from the only instance. There's value in ONUS as well. Maybe a constructive approach is to game out a few scenarios in explanatory essay form of good and bad usage of ONUS. Also, I think there's an aspect to ONUS that could be explored more. Sentences in Wikipedia are similar to logical premises, which is that they are arguments that rest on an evidentiary basis, which is similar to the burden of proof. We could explain that burden better, I think, and solve the ONUS-abuse problem as well. Andre🚐 20:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I like that the best; it fights the misuse and "ball in the other court" problem, without enshrining "silent consensus" as having inherent weight, which poses the exact same "ball in the other court" problem in the opposite direction. highly-visible text in established high-traffic articles is too open to gaming, and wouldn't solve the misbehaviour problem DFlhb (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Collapsed own comment

Reframing ONUS to only apply after a discussion has run its course, would largely solve this, and might be the most likely to pass proposal here. I've (repeatedly) seen ONUS misused with regard to new material too (where there is majority support for inclusion yet ONUS is asserted and debated), not just for older material; the issue's the same: contentious procedural arguments about what we should do with the content, distracting from substantive discussion about the content. In practice that means taking what WP:NOCON says about non-BLPs, flipping it around to suggest (not require) exclusion rather than inclusion, and then changing ONUS to match that new NOCON; since NOCON is focused on what happens after discussions end. I also noticed a big error in my earlier proposal on the NOCON talk page; it should have said add or remove, not add, modify, or remove. The wording will need to be subtle and robustly-discussed, because we don't want, for example, people blanking articles after "no consensus" AfD closes. DFlhb (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Collapsed; that would actually weaken WP:QUO, since it would lead to new additions staying in during discussion, rather than kept out temporarily per WP:QUO. I increasingly think that since the problem is wikilawyering, misusing its wording without regard to its spirit, the solution would be to explain the spirit explicitly, or give examples of good/bad use in some explanatory page. DFlhb (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I mentioned some of this in A New Suggestion b) and c). The other part is wikilawyering, and this isn't the only 'ALLUPPERCASESTATEMENT' that suffers from that. How we stop editors from trying to misusing ONUS as an "I win" trump card I don't know, but the same problems exist with edit warring the removal of content because "ISAYBLPRESTOREAPPLIES".
Maybe some statement that if other editors disagree you're probably wrong would help. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• I mean, that's why I'm saying things like "in the lead of a high-traffic, high-scrutiny article." Certainly ONUS does not and has never protected removals like that, and someone who tries to cite it for such a removal is misreading it or misusing it. If something has been there for an extended period of time, in a place where it can be reasonably concluded that it's been seen and reviewed by many different editors, and you want to assert that it is nonetheless WP:FRINGE or WP:POV, that's clearly something you have to demonstrate and get consensus for; after all, removals (especially of longstanding text that an article has been written or balanced around) can also lead to an article becoming WP:POV or tilting it towards undue emphasis on WP:FRINGE viewpoints; removal of longstanding, highly-visible text in established high-traffic articles is every bit as dangerous as additions and requires the same degree of scrutiny and consensus-building. (The longstanding, highly-visible text in established high-traffic articles bit there is the compromise you're asking for.) We determine these things by discussion and consensus-building, there's no silver-bullet policy; so ideal policies should encourage everyone to come to the table, with the spectrum of consensus left, to an extent, deliberately vague and hard limits on any policy that an editor could use to try and say "nah the ball is completely in your court." Definitely there's a spectrum of consensus; my problem is that many people read ONUS as not recognizing this at all. I'd be happy to have a discussion of what constitutes implicit consensus, but I'd like to see at least some feedback on the definitions I've given. --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
• Also, as far as compromises go, I think that that is my outer limit - a sentence saying that ONUS does not apply to longstanding, highly-visible text in established high-traffic articles, which are presumed to have consensus. That reflects both actual practice and our existing policies on consensus-building. --Aquillion (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Support that Andre🚐 21:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

About the "reason to remove content": Since the community doesn't have a 'thing' that they call WP:Reasons to remove content, then telling an editor that "____ is not a reason to remove content" (or the opposite, e.g., "verifiability is not a reason to include content") is not likely to be understood. You'd have to introduce that kind of idea with a lot of education. The shortest possible explanation that I can think of now is:

• There are many reasons to include material, and many reasons to exclude material. For example, material may be removed because you can't find reliable source that supports it after a reasonable effort, because it is non-neutral, or because it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. See WP:PRESERVE and WP:DONTPRESERVE for some other reasons. However, by themselves, "There's no consensus" or "per ONUS" are invalid reasons, even when they are true. Instead, give the reason for the lack of consensus to include the material, e.g., "There is no consensus to include this because editors felt it was misleading" or "Per the talk page discussion, this material belongs in [[other article]]".

I don't think it will help our friend with the 1RR sanction and the moderately long block log, but it might eventually nudge some editors towards clearer explanations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies if this has been addressed already, but does the current wording of ONUS conflict with NOCON? For example, if discussion about a long-standing, disputed piece of content that doesn't fall under the three exceptions of NOCON ends without gaining consensus, ONUS would suggest removing the content since the burden to show that the content should be included/kept is on those supporting inclusion, while NOCON would suggest keeping the content as it has been there for long enough to be considered the status quo. Liu1126 (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Liu1126. this is a known problem.

I have started drafting Wikipedia:Requests for comment/When there is no consensus either way to see whether we can resolve this. If someone wants to create a list of prior discussions on its talk page, that might be of interest to some editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Would that solve the ONUS/NOCON difference, the question you're asking only applies if all other factors are equal. It would still be possible to have no consensus in situations where all things aren't equal (but editors don't agree on the balance of that factors). I would have thought most situations are of the later kind, not a perfect equilibrium. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The question I've written removes all other factors because want to make sure that the answer is about what to do in a no-consensus situation, without being able to claim "Oh, but X has more votes" or "No, Y has stronger arguments" or "But I'm sure that a brand-new article counts as 'the long-standing stable status quo version'" or whatever else would let editors pretend that there really is a consensus, even though the story directly states that there is no consensus and all factors are equal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Your missing my point, your perfect 'all factors are equal' situation is one editors could only pretend ever happening. Much more likely is failure to agree on those factors. Because no consensus in real situations happen like that much more often than any imaginary perfect scenario. If policy is changed based on your question editors could force a no consensus situation using exactly the arguments you note, and get their desired result because it's policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I know that the hypothetical situation is unlikely in practice. However, in prior discussions, I've found that if editors are given even the slightest excuse to think that the discussion is not exactly and perfectly balanced, then they'll talk out of both sides of their mouths: "Oh, yes, sure, a tiny majority in terms of vote-counting and trivially stronger arguments is no consensus – also, the vote count was 50 to 49, so you should implement the version that was preferred by a single vote" (or "you should implement the version that had the trivially stronger arguments", depending on the editor's personal preferences).

Consequently, the question needs to revolve around an indisputably equal discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Or… the question can be left intentionally UNRESOLVED, pending further discussion. Sometimes consensus takes a while, and people need to be patient. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

So creating a 'one rule' to win the argument is a good idea? It won't be used in 50-49 splits but 4-3 splits were three editors bludgeon a discussion to no conclusion because that's their desired outcome. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If there are only 7 editors discussing, you need to call in more editors. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes as I said above that WP:Dispute resolution is the correct course of action, not changing policy so one side wins. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

A novel use of ONUS?

Hmmm. this? (Summary - A no consensus AfD entitles an editor to redirect/delete the page because by ONUS it has no consensus) Selfstudier (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've commented at the thread. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ONUS gives revert ninjas the upper hand

WP:ONUS unfairly gives revert ninjas the upper hand in any content dispute because any Ninja editor can delete content (regardless if it's recently added) and say "go get a consensus for inclusion". Is this a good thing? I can't see how that would be the case, given that there must be a clear consensus to delete articles (see WP:NOCONSENSUS). It's beyond me why the same standard would not apply to any content within articles that passes WP:V. Where is Matt? (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You are saying that as if its a bad thing. Actually, it is by design that those who protect the encyclopedia from nonsense have the upper hand over those who want to include nonsense. Read Brandolini's law. If you patrol recent changes for a while you will understand. Polygnotus (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If it passes WP:V it wouldn't be nonsense. Where is Matt? (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Lots of nonsense is verifiably true; its just not fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Polygnotus (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

If the disputed content is truly not encyclopedic ("nonsense" per your vocabulary), there would easily be consensus to exclude it from the article. Where is Matt? (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

So what you are proposing is that a povpusher or marketing/PR person could just add nonsense to Wikipedia (no consensus required), and the people who actually create and improve the encyclopedia have to get consensus to remove it. Do you see the problem? Polygnotus (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Any content not in compliance with Wikipedia's policies (in your example, WP:NPOV) can be edited, up to, and including deletion. In your example, if content is opined to violate WP:NPOV, the onus would obviously be on the person who wants to add the content to show that it's not in violation of WP:NPOV.

The way WP:ONUS currently reads, revert ninjas can delete any content by citing WP:ONUS. Where is Matt? (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

What you call revert ninjas are the volunteers who spend hours of their finite life on earth to protect the encyclopedia many people worked so hard on against those who would damage it. Polygnotus (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That is the exact opposite of what I see. What I see, is a revert ninja hitting the revert button (only takes a few seconds) to wipe away the hard work of the editor who goes through the effort of finding information and documenting it. Of course, not all information is encyclopedic, but the burden should be on the editor who wants to delete the information, just like the burden on deletion of entire articles. Where is Matt? (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

"If the disputed content is truly not encyclopedic ("nonsense" per your vocabulary), there would easily be consensus to exclude it" Now flip that around. If the content is so great, getting consensus to include it should be easy right? But it wasn't, because it isn't. Polygnotus (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The proposed change to WP:ONUS impacts whenever there is no consensus either way. If there is consensus one way or the other, WP:ONUS does not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Where is Matt? (talk • contribs)

I am not. Polygnotus (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

If someone is citing ONUS, but removing something solely because it hasn't gained consensus without giving a legitimate reason (e.g., WP:UNDUE), then that can be viewed as disruptive editing and WP:GAMING. That is what separates typical editing with this policy vs. the scenario you're bringing up. Not that it doesn't happen, but this policy does not allow for that either. The other comments here a very on point about actual practice with the policy. KoA (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of pieces of information that are verifiable in reliable sources, but are otherwise nonsense or even outright false. Passing V is a very low bar to meet, which is why we have additional policies and guidelines like WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MEDRS. When an addition has been contested, it is right that consensus must be sought for its inclusion, not exclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable and false are contradictory. If material appears in WP:RS it is presumed to be correct, unless contradicted by other WP:RS. Where is Matt? (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not true. Polygnotus (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable and false are contradictory. No, that is not correct. Both mis and disinformation are well known concepts, and reliable sources that ordinarily have a reputation for fact-checking have fallen prey and been known to publish both. Additionally, reliable sources are written by people, and people make mistakes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You need to read both sentences. In the next sentence, I concede that WP:RS can make mistakes, but the presumption is that they don't. Where is Matt? (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

You can safely assume Sideswipe9th has read the entire comment Sideswipe9th replied to. Polygnotus (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Lots of people think ONUS allows that, in practice it is not so easy to get away with only claiming ONUS. Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I would change the following sentence:
From: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
To: The responsibility for achieving consensus for removal of content that passes WP:V, and is not in violation of WP:BLP, is on those seeking to remove the disputed content.
Where is Matt? (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Terrible idea. And its not going to happen. Polygnotus (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Where is Matt? (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Except its not an argument. And not in a deletion discussion. Polygnotus (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

It's an argument against making the change, and here lies the point: what's good at deletion discussions should apply for any dispute. Afterall, a deletion discussion is a dispute whether a topic merits an article on Wikipedia. Where is Matt? (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah no. Sigh. Polygnotus (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Where is Matt? is probably looking for Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, which also addresses purely subjective arguments. But Polygnotus is correct that this being a "terrible idea" is not an argument. It's an observation, borne out by the WP:SNOW result that instantly formed, and all the similar discussions of the same idea before. This should probably just be listed at WP:PERENNIAL. Any time a user who has been here for only 4 months thinks policy is broken and that they have the fix for it, they are making a mistake.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

ONUS, part 7 incoming :) Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A terrible idea for all the reason stated in the dozens of previous discussions. If someone is editing disruptively take them to ANI, don't try to change policy so you win. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. This is self-serving attempt to change a policy in a way to make poor editing easier, and would do incalculable harm to the project. The request is based on no evidence of any problem to address at all (and much to the contrary; see below). If Where is Matt? were actually meeting with unreasoning, PoV-laden resistance when he tried to add neutral and demonstrably factual material in an article or category of articles, with impeccable sources for his edits, but no valid rationales for undoing them, then this would be a behavioral matter to address at a noticeboard.

But I seriously doubt this is the case anyway. In looking over several weeks of edits by this editor that have been reverted, I see: unsourced and probably WP:OR claims; attempts to WP:COATRACK an entire section of material into one article that is already covered at another (already linked at the first) and which does not provably relate strongly to the first article anyway; lots of unhelpful and long-winded rewriting of headings; red-linking things that are never likely to become articles; incorrect link-piping; circular linking back to the same article the link is in; mis-capitalization of descriptive phrases as if they are proper names; adding unnecessary subheadings above very small bits of content; really insistent and WP:IDHT-leaning attempts to change various essays (to make them longer but no clearer, and often misapplicable in various ways after the meaning changes); terrible "make it longwinded for no reason" writing, like changing "swiftly" to "in a swift manner"; improper changing of disambiguation pages to move the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC meaning out of the lead and into the list of other meanings; experimental changes to markup in a page being saved as tests, instead of using "Show preview"; extremely confusing heading changes like "Texas" above material entirely about political matters in that state being changed to "Tax returns" (incidental subject of the Texas legislative activity, which is like similar activity in other jurisdictions); repeatedly changing an article back to having a large list of commercial examples, over objections that it is spammy or will attract more spam, yet zero participation by this editor in the talk page thread already open about the matter; deleting sourced information simply because he doesn't understand the difference between two syntactically similar but factually different claims; adding speculative claims to a BLP with nothing but primary-source news stories, despite him already being aware that the claims contradict reliably sourced events.

The further back I look, the worse it gets. Much of this editor's activity consists of edit-warring to reinstate his changes after it has been reverted for very clear reasons. And I find zero evidence of any kind anywhere that one or more editors are reverting him improperly, as he alleges above and wants to change the policy to prevent. So, in short, this is basically a bunch of noise, by someone who does not yet understand how the encyclopedic works, and who is treating it like his personal blog and getting frustrated that he doesn't have total editorial control over it. This is nothing to devote any more attention to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Attacking me, rather than the proposal, constitutes a classic Ad hominem attack that ought to be rejected out of hand. The current policy gives revert ninjas the ability to say WP:IDONTLIKEIT and say "go get a consensus in the talk page". We have even seen this in this discussion. The idea is to reject the use of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in all content disputes, not just deletion discussions. In my opinion, removal of verifiable content should be based on policies, not on WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and yes, it's redundant to say "verifiable content", since WP:V is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars of Wikipedia -- I purposefully added the word "verifiable" for emphasis).. Where is Matt? (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in your argument that hasn't been discussed to death. The policy works fine, other than a few bumps with disruptive editors but the issue there is the editors not policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I have had and continue to have strong disagreements with User:SMcCandlish about several other issues (especially the Wikipedia:Manual of Style). But on this issue, I fully concur in User:SMcCandlish's excellent analysis. WP:ONUS is fine as is. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, I have no recollection of particular disagreements with you. I don't pay much attention to user names or hold grudges. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not "attacking you", Where is Matt?, I'm analyzing your activity as it pertains to the nature of this proposal, and finding a great deal of it objectively unconstructive in ways that would probably be further enabled by this proposal succeeeding (which has no chance at all), and finding no evidence to support your claims about PoV-pushing "revert ninjas", anywhere. Anyone who goes into weird lecturing like "it's redundant to say 'verifiable content', since WP:V is one of the Wikipedia:Five pillars of Wikipedia", toward people who have been here far longer than the erstwhile lecturer and who know orders of magnitude more about the system and how its parts work and interrelate (most of the regulars at WP policy talk pages), is simply in the throes of the Dunning–Kruger effect, and it shows in the very nature of this proposal. You'd do well to get a feel for how WP operates the way it does and why, instead of railing against the way it operates and refusing to understand why no matter how many times it is patiently explained to you.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Also note that the Ad hominem article explicitly states: "But it also may be a sound argument, if the premises are correct and the bias is relevant to the argument.". In this case the bias is relevant to the argument. Polygnotus (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

To put this simply… when there is disagreement between editors over whether some bit of information should be included or not, we don’t ask editors to prove a negative (ie “this doesn’t belong”) we ask them to prove the positive (ie “this does belong”). This stance makes our articles better. Blueboar (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I am challenging. If an editor went through the trouble of adding content that satisfies all of Wikipedia's policy requirements, the onus should be on the revert ninja to remove the content. Where is Matt? (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

OK… then we disagree on what is best for the project. I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. Good luck trying to convince others. You haven’t convinced me. Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

And saying "revert ninjas" over and over again is not making your case for you. It just reinforces that you think everyone who reverts you is wrong, while a close examination of you being reverted shows that in virtually every case the reverts were somewhere between well-justified and downright necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Many people have explained the same thing. Maybe its time to move on. Polygnotus (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

In your opinion your addition has met all requirements, that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with you. Another editor can in good faith disagree with you, with out being a ninja of your imagination. If it happens I suggest following WP:BRD and using WP:Dispute resolution as necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you. The way WP:ONUS currently reads, the revert ninja does not have to provide any argument for removal of content, other than to point to WP:CONSENSUS and say, "go get consensus for inclusion". That's how revert ninjas operate. It ought to be the other way around, just like it is in WP:AfD discussions. Where is Matt? (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

There are no revert ninjas. If editors are behaving in a disruptive manner the correct venue is WP:ANI, changing policy won't change their behaviour they will just find something else to be disruptive with. No policy, or part of a policy, is a trump card. Discussion is the preferred method of solving disputes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Given how WP:ONUS is written, the revert ninja doesn't do anything wrong by removing content with the only justification being "there no consensus for inclusion". WP:ANI does not handle content disputes; it only handles violations of policies. Where is Matt? (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone who continues to revert without joining a discussion is WP:STONEWALLING, a behavioural issue that should be handled at WP:ANI. If they continue to revert then it may come under WP:3RR, which is better suited to WP:AN3.
Having no discussion and trying some other method to WP:WIN could also be seen as disruptive. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I would say is that I am of the view that ONUS is more of a consensus/editing issue than it is verifiability so I think it is sitting in the wrong policy but that's just me. Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that ONUS is in the wrong policy. I support what it says, but not where it says it. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Moving it to consensus but leaving mention of it here seems a solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How revert ninjas weaponize ONUS

I guess I did not do a good job describing how revert ninjas weaponize ONUS, so I'll try to do that here.
Since we are talking about content that passes WP:V, which can be objectively determined, the revert ninjas have to use subjective reasoning such as WP:UNDUE or WP:TRIVIA to delete the content that they want to delete (it's a matter of opinion whether something is undue or trivial). The revert ninjas then use WP:ONUS to put the responsibility on the editor who added the content to get WP:CONSENSUS that the content (per the examples listed) is not undue / not trivial.
In my opinion, the responsibility to form a consensus based on such subjective arguments should rest with the revert ninja, and not with the editor who adds the verifiable content. Where is Matt? (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you're confusing failing to describe your concerns with failing to do so in a manner that other editors find persuasive. You may want to consider taking a look at WP:STICK. DonIago (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry I fully understand you position, I just don't agree with it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:42, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Where is Matt?, please immediately stop calling editors who disagree with you about including something "revert ninjas". Valereee (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

In spite of the ad hominem attacks that have been directed towards me in the discussion, this is not about me. Where is Matt? (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

You started this discussion in a way that was very negative about anyone who might disagree with you, and have continued in that same vein. Framing your arguments in this way won't win you any converts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Where is Matt?, the discussion of namecalling is about your behavior, and I'm asking you to stop doing it. Valereee (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

How could I possibly be engaging in namecalling if I'm not calling anybody by any names? I did not write the essay WP:NINJA, and I did not accuse any specific editor of being a revert ninja. Where is Matt? (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Taking this to your talk. Valereee (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that ONUS says the excluder (who may or may not be the reverter) wins. Also, this appears to be intentional and wanted by most of the community.

I encourage you to not think of UNDUE and TRIVIA as "subjective", which some people will read as a smear word. I encourage you to think of it as requiring "good editorial judgement", which is something that Wikipedia can't operate without.

On the broader subject, meeting the minimum burden of verifiability is just not enough to get something in a given article. If someone shows up at Cancer (disease) with well-cited information about Cancer (astrology), you really don't want the excluder to have to prove consensus for its removal, when it's obviously in the wrong article ("UNDUE", in our jargon). Any modification to the rule would still have to account for honest mistakes like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that any deletion of content is a revert, even if performed years after the content was written. Someone had to have written the content for the content to be removed, so the deletion reverts the original writing (even if it would not count in the WP:3RR).

I disagree that the word "subjective" could reasonably be interpreted as a "smear word".

As for the examples of Cancer (disease) vs. Cancer (astrology), any reasonable editor who adds legitimate content into the wrong article should be more than happy to add it to the correct article. Where is Matt? (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, hang around these pages for a while, and you'll see some editors shuddering at the idea of subjective content. We regularly have to remind editors that it's okay to include information about opinions in articles. Half the time, they don't even seem to know what the word really means. See, e.g., this edit, which removed cited material and then asserts the editor's own personal opinion about the subject.

It is not true that every exclusion of a claim involves removing anything. It is possible to exclude a claim while only adding new words to the article. Consider "Homeopathy is not effective". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Some policies routinely get used contrary to their intent including by wiki-clever editors I think that it's a valid concern for discussion. I do have a proposal in mind to resolve this and other onus-related problems. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking forward to seeing your proposal. Where is Matt? (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I can in general second the general thrust this comment has here given this was one of the reasons I left editing Polish-related articles. These tactics created a very toxic atmosphere in that topic area. This problem was in a way recognised by ArbCom in findings of fact 7 and 16.2-16.4 in this case. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• We are called “Editors” (and not “writers” or “contributors”) for a reason. Part of our job is to EDIT articles. And editing includes making decisions on what material to include/exclude from an article. Writers almost always hate it when editors decide to exclude something they have written, but if they want their work published they have to adhere to what the editors demand (or take their work elsewhere). Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

One other comment… ONUS was never intended to be a reason to REMOVE content. It is intended to be a requirement to RETURN content that has been removed for other reasons. Perhaps that could be made clearer. Blueboar (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Revert Ninjas cannot use WP:ONUS as the sole justification for their reverts. But they can throw out subjective arguments (as already mentioned, WP:UNDUE or WP:TRIVIA) that are impossible to shoot down because they are subjective in nature, and then use WP:ONUS to get the upper hand in the content dispute. Where is Matt? (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

All challenges are subjective, and UNDUE and TRIVIA appear to have widespread community backing. "This content doesn't belong here" in any form is a valid challenge, editors do not and should not have to know Wikipedia wordsalad to form a challenge that meets anyone's expectations.

I put forward some ideas to make it clearer that ONUS shouldn't be used as the initial reason for removing content, an issue it shares with "no consensus", but it didn't go anywhere. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No, not all challenges are subjective. WP:V challenges are objective. Content is either verifiable by WP:RS or not. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

V challenges can most certainly be subjective, "Does the source state that in particular, or is the wording used a misrepresentation?", and whether content is verifiable is not the be all or end all of inclusion in the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been involved in enough WP:V challenges to know that they aren't always objective, two good faith editors can have differing opinions on whether a particular source supports a given bit of text. A lot of things, really are ambiguous, especially when dealing with sources with many, therefore a liberal use of, commas! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

So… talk to others (don’t focus on trying to convince the “ninja”. Get 3rd and 4th opinions). Explain why you think the content isn’t UNDUE or TRIVIA (or whatever the challenge is based on). Make the best argument you can and try to gain a consensus to return the disputed material to the article. You won’t always be successful, but sometimes you might be. Blueboar (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

So… my proposal is to require the revert ninjas to get a 2nd/3rd/4th opinion. In other words, err on the side of including content whose verifiability is not in dispute. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Nope… If a writer can not convince a 3rd/4th (etc) editor to keep the disputed material, it doesn’t belong in the article. We EDIT it out. Blueboar (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This is where I think there may be a legitimate point. How do we deal with meatpuppetry and brigading? Andre🚐 22:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Meh… meatpupetry and breigading can happen on either side of a content debate. If you suspect that is what is happening, you can widen the discussion. Go to a noticeboard. File an RFC. Get Admins involved. Etc. Blueboar (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it happens on both sides, and there are remedies, and they work fairly well. The question is, on the whole, does ONUS encourage stability, discourage change, encourage or discourage good editing. I do think the anti-ONUSers are right that it doesn't really need to be cited since it's just a fundamental aspect of consensus that any change, not just an addition of new material is subject to ONUS. It's almost just unnecessary and redundant but of course, whose burden it is to show proof is a very important logical concept, and many times bad actors used to like to try (though I haven't to be honest seen this in a while, so maybe this is going away) to show up and ask a lot of questions and try to shift the onus back onto the status quo. Of course we assume good faith and all of that. So returning to the meatpuppet/brigading aspect: what's to stop either side of any content disputes from ONUS-gaming? I'm not saying we need a rule for a problem that isn't happening. I just wish ONUS would explain what it is better so it's harder to misuse which does happen. Andre🚐 02:14, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

ONUS isn't about change per se. It's about inclusion and exclusion. ONUS puts a finger on the scale to make exclusion a little easier than inclusion.

In this respect ONUS is very different from any change, as ONUS can be invoked even when the material has been in the article, and previously uncontested, for 20+ years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it does. See for example Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war. Some users think there was never a consensus to include that Hamas used sexual assault as a weapon against innocent Israeli civilians. Why should we give an extra weapon to people to want to keep out stuff they just don't like for no reason, to protect the reputation of terrorists? Andre🚐 21:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Because editors decided that it's better to say nothing than to be wrong. For that article, I imagine that an RFC would settle that general point of inclusion pretty firmly.

("For no reason" and "to protect the reputation of terrorists" are self-contradictory.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You are right on all three counts. What I meant was that maybe people don't want to always say why they want to remove something, so they say ONUS instead. I like where Zero is going, below. Andre🚐 07:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

And who specifically are the revert ninjas? Your proposal would appear to require all editors to get a 2nd/3rd/4th opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

All editors who want to delete content whose verifiability is not in dispute, and is not in violation of WP:BLP. In other words, shift the onus to the deletionist instead of the editor who inserted the content. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But if its been challenged then its verifiability is in dispute, no? Wouldn't this shift the onus to all editors who wanted to delete content and not just deletionist? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

No. Not every challenge is a challenge based on WP:V. Per the examples I have brought up several times already, challenges can be made by claiming the content is in violation of WP:UNDUE or WP:TRIVIA, which is entirely subjective. Where is Matt? (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

And every editor who makes a challenge under WP:UNDUE or WP:TRIVIA is therefore an edit ninja and a deletionist? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(I suspect that the traditional definitions apply here: Only people who object to content that I approve of are potentially doing anything inappropriate. People who object to content that I disapprove of are highly esteemed defenders of the wiki.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Terrible idea for all the reason previously discussed in threads about ONUS. If someone objects to you addition go and talk with them. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• I would note that the linked "Edit Ninja" description is also a description of how editing wikipedia must appear to most trolls. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  That seems fitting. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

• ONUS is a key policy for the correct operation of the encyclopedia. The only thing that might be useful is to reword it to make the intention more clear. Blueboar correctly put it like this: "ONUS was never intended to be a reason to REMOVE content. It is intended to be a requirement to RETURN content that has been removed for other reasons. Perhaps that could be made clearer." The basic principle is that everything in article space should be there by consensus (implied or explicit). Discarding that principle would be catastrophic. The non-symmetry between inclusion and exclusion is deliberate. Consensus can change, but that is achieved by discussion of the merits of the material. I suggest we try to craft an additional sentence. Here is my 0-th attempt:
  Note that consensus must be sought on the basis of the merits of the disputed content; ONUS does not contribute to consensus except to make it necessary when content is disputed." Zero^talk 12:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

  I think you'd want to say something like "to make it necessary to document the existence of an explicit consensus". Consensus is always required; sometimes, it must be proven to exist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  FWIW, I support either addition in principle or letter. Andre🚐 07:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  That does seem reasonable.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

V/OR/BLP dispute about pronunciation keys in lead sentences

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: WT:Manual of Style/Lead section#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Pronunciation – What began as seemingly a style question about a particular handful of articles has turned into a broad sourcing and OR debate, most especially as it pertains to pronunciations of individuals' surnames. This could really use input from V regulars not just MoS regulars.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Tagging without challenging

We talked about this a while ago, but I can't find the discussion. I ran across Glossary of communication disorders today. It's 100% uncited, and from my spotcheck, also 100% verifiable. That is, the only problem with the content is that nobody has yet spent several hours spamming in a bunch of little blue clicky numbers.

I'm wishing that there was a way for me to spam in {{citation needed}} at the end of every entry, so that it would end up in Wikipedia:Citation Hunt. However, under our present system, there's no way for editors to distinguish between "she didn't want to do all that work herself, so she set it up to work for the citation-adding game" and "This is a serious WP:CHALLENGE to the contents, and if a source is not supplied within a reasonable length of time, the material should be removed". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The {{unreferenced}} banner template is appropriate. Even though WP:GLOSSARIES can be even more of an oddball than lists, they still need verifiability, but on something that's an established field and verifiable in any single textbook like this, one could just pick up (or download) a single mainstream grad-level textbook, go to the index, and tick the boxes. I'd suggest you don't cite each entry to their page number in the textbook index unless you're actually verifying, word-for-word, that the description is accurate.

The concerning bit is the handful of entries that might be there are not in the standard textbook. You would probably find those in the edit history after the bulk of the glossary was written. Those are the ones to individually tag with {{cn}}, or else to google-scholar quickly to ensure they are established in the field.

You could of course flag WP:WikiProject Medicine to do this, but it seems to me an easy enough job if you can get a relatively recent textbook. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv, I probably should have been more explicit, instead of just giving links. This policy says that all material must be verifiable. As I said, the list is 100% verifiable. That means, from the Wikipedia:Glossary, that all material in the page must be something "that someone (although not necessarily you) could, with enough effort and expense, determine has been published in a reliable source, even if no source is provided in the article."

This page "has verifiability". What it doesn't have is "cited sources". "Cited" means little blue clicky numbers on the page this minute. "Verifiable" means "an editor realistically could find a source to cite and add a little blue clicky number". In the language of WP:UPPERCASE, we have WP:V; we don't have WP:CITE. I would like to have both, and I don't want to do the work myself.

As a way of drawing attention to this page by people who actually do enjoy doing that work, I would like to get it into Wikipedia:Citation Hunt. However, it's important to me that this be done without anyone (e.g., an editor who is unclear on the distinction between verifiABLE and citED) being able to use that as an excuse to gut the article later. This is presently not possible in our current system. We don't have a system to say "It'd be super sweet of someone to volunteer to add a source here, and I am absolutely not issuing a CHALLENGE because I know perfectly well that this is verifiable content". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

This again? Anyone can put a cn tag if they want to and delete it after a time if one isn't forthcoming, no obligation to go hunting for one. Selfstudier (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I could add a tag, wait a few weeks, and then remove it, but I'd like these entries to remain as opportunities in Citation Hunt until they are cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You could only do that if the tag had actually been addressed or you're upgrading it to a secion/page tag, it would be disruptive to remove a valid tag. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Generally, the editor who adds a tag is allowed to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Only if the tag has been addressed (even if thats because it was placed in error or not needed). A competent good faith editor simply does not place and then remove valid tags so if thats going on then the editor isn't one or either of those two things. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no such rule, and trying to make one up on the fly seems rather pointless. No idea where this bureaucracy-mongering is coming from.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I understood what you were saying about the article (and maybe I didn't communicate that well), but I think I misunderstood the point of this thread (which isn't meant to be about any particular article).

I've found something similar in several old academic-centric articles, where a great bulk of material may lack references of any kind but be 100% verifiable (or in the case of math, simply verifiably true). One knows enough to know that supporting references definitely exist, but one lacks the time/energy to get those references, and one wants a tag that says to other editors "citation needed, but it's definitely WP:V and the reference material is out there, so please don't nuke this text in 6 months like you would with ordinary cn stuff." Do I have that right?

So it sounds like this is just a matter of creating a new inline template, and getting some consensus to put it in WP:V and other meta pages so people use it? You also need a good title for the template -- and I'm sorry but I can't think of one. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think we're talking about the same thing now. A new template, or a "known good" parameter for the existing one might work. A new template (unfortunately) might be safer, as changing from {{cn}} to {{optional but it would be ideal to have a little blue clicky number here}} would be more noticeable in the diffs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

There is {{sources exist}}, which is a header template that could certainly be improved a bit. But it's not so popular that it is heavily restricted. Adding some customizable text fields like |reason= would help. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

What's the copyright status of www.nidcd.nih.gov? The entries on this list appear to be very close or simple copy paste of NIH entries. I know certain US governmental publication are free to use, but don't know the complete details.

. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Everything created by an employee of the US federal government in the course of their official duties is public domain. On official websites, it's not unusual to find that the text is public domain, but there are exceptions, and photos are more likely to be copyrighted.

https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/glossary is a glossary there. The page has no statement about copyright, and https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/policies#d says "Unless otherwise stated, the information on this site is not copyrighted and is in the public domain." It appears therefore to be in the public domain.

Our page goes back to 2002 (=21 years). The first functional copy of the NIDCD page that I can find is https://web.archive.org/web/20160405050019/https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/glossary in 2016. Many descriptions match, but the list of entries is quite different (e.g., under "G", they have Genetic counselor, Geneticist, Global Aphasia, and Gustation, while we have Grammar, Gustation, and Glaucoma). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks I could find how they declare non-free content but https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/policies#d is clear. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

A little geeky "I'm good at whipping up templates" part of me at first (for like two seconds) liked the "just a matter of creating a new inline template" idea, but in the end it would simply be abused by every PoV pusher under the sun to assert that their nonsense is somehow sourceable out there and shouldn't be removed. The only way to demonstrate that something is verifiable is to make it verified.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you make template trustmebro? Sources exist but I am not gonna tell you where.^{[Trust me bro]} Polygnotus (talk) 12:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

On a more serious note, that {{Sources exist}} template is a joke and should be deleted. I randomly picked an article where it was used, "Technical decision". Literally no sources. I compared the Wikipedia article with a boxing dictionary.

Wikipedia: "A technical decision is a term used in boxing when a fight has to be stopped because of a headbutt."

Boxing dictionary: "Technical Decision: When a fight is stopped early due to a cut, disqualification, or any situation when the bout is stopped and the scorecards are tallied."

So the Wikipedia article is not just unsourced, it also uses a wrong definition of its subject. Instead of using {{Sources exist}} one should simply post a bunch of sources on the talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I do exactly that at various topics (in a thread I always create and call "Additional sources" for consistency, and sometimes cross-reference them between related topics). It saves me the trouble of trying to learn some complicated bibliography app to keep track of stuff I find that might be of use, and with me putting the sources (usually already pre-formatted in citation templates for easy copy-paste) in the talk pages, someone else may beat me to the punch in actually using them to improve the article. Plus they're a line of AfD defense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Not to get sidetracked, but the source you posted isn't an official rulebook or summary or something like that. When I looked up other sources, they were mixed depending on I guess how technical they were -- the Indian Boxing Council site seemed to indicated the TD can technically come about from any cut or similar injury, from any legal collision that is not a punch, but it seems from summaries like that of Sports Pundit like it's almost always a head collision or headbutt.

So our article does seem indeed to be verifiable by sources, but it's certainly not gotten at the heart of the issue that we want for any decent WP article -- what is the technical definition in every circumstance in every major jurisdiction. I'd say the {{sources exist}} tag is accurate, appropriate, and flags this article as one needing significant attention. SamuelRiv (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

But when you dig a bit deeper that just turns out to be wrong, e.g. https://www.boxingbase.com/boxing-results-explained/ Cuts are one of many potential reasons for technical decisions, and the definition in the wikipedia article is incorrect. It would be much much better if the driveby tagger posted some sources on the talkpage instead of slapping on a sources exist tag. The template gives people an easy way out, which is great for lazy people but bad for the encyclopedia. Polygnotus (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

That link says exactly what I said. The fouls in question are almost always headbutts and collisions resulting in cuts, and half the google results refer to such exclusively. "Dig deeper" means doing the article right and getting strong RS, not this or that website. A driveby tagger may have simply known or believed, as a person familiar to the sport, that a TD is in practice always a head collision. They tagged the article as problematic. Now here we are discussing a problematic article. Had such a tag not existed, perhaps the tagger may have considered, as is the point of OP's thread here, that the article were sufficiently verifiable as to not warrant tagging that it "needs sources for verification", and moved on. The lack of a suitable tag would not magically motivate said tagger to spend 5--10 extra minutes on a single page to list a bunch of sources (which they probably would not themselves have vetted, because that's another 15 minutes at least extra commitment you're asking of them) on the Talk page.

If the point of having quick straightforward tagging templates is that problematic pages are tagged for later review by those with the time and energy, which is exactly what is happening right now with the TD article, then that is the system working as intended.

If a new tag with more granular semantics will mean more tagging of problematic articles with more precision, as OP is suggesting, then I'm all for it. SamuelRiv (talk) 13:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

This is also one of the great properties of the trustmebro template. When Wikipedians see ^{[Trust me bro]} sprinkled throughout articles they may end up talking about those articles. So if I understand you correctly you think its a great idea if I add ^{[Trust me bro]} to all unsourced statements, which will then lead to discussions that mention the articles (despite the fact that mentioning an article does nothing to improve it). Being in favour of a template because people complain how useless it is is a bit weird. In response to the OP, if someone is too lazy to use sources they are too lazy to add content to Wikipedia and every edit they make should be reverted. Polygnotus (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@SamuelRiv: Of course I was thinking about fixing the Technical decision article, but after reading your comment I decided I am too lazy. And when you are done, you will have only 1969 articles to go. Writing articles Wikipedia:BACKWARD is not to be encouraged. Imagine if we WP:TNT all that unsourced content. Have we lost anything of value? Pulling out the weeds gives the other plants more space and sunlight and nutrients to grow. Polygnotus (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, deleting good content is always a loss. Deleting pages also means losing links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I am thinking of Template:Sources exist as an intermediate point between Template:Notability and an article that has cited sources proving notability. I'm thinking of it as "I'm not questioning notability, because I did a BEFORE search".

I looked at a dozen articles tagged with this template. They ranged from Greasy Kid Stuff, with only an WP:ELOFFICIAL link, to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons), which cites 73 sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: See below. Polygnotus (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

• We have a ”dubious” tag for uncited statements we are challenging… It sounds like we need a “Likely” tag for uncited statements we think are ok, but would benefit from being cited. Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sounds like a good idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:46, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Not to me. This is already what {{citation needed}} is for. If the claim isn't likely to be true, then the correct tag is {{dubious}} (or just delete the claim as too dubious to retain).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  But if you put {{citation needed}} at the end of a sentence, the sentence becomes at risk of having a Helpful Editor™ blanking it, even if said editor knows that it's true and accurate and verifiable, and even though having it removed is the opposite of what you want.

  For example, I've been tagging articles with {{underlinked}}. This is helpful (because newer editors will add more links) and low risk (because nobody thinks the presence of this tag is an excuse to remove anything from the article). But if I put {{citation needed}} on the article, then it's potentially helpful (because there's a very small chance that someone will add a citation) but high risk (because there's a bigger chance that someone will blank the content instead of adding a source).

  I want to be able to get the potentially helpful benefit without the high risk of harming the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see "the sentence becomes at risk of having a Helpful Editor™ blanking it" as being anything but an entirely acceptable "risk". Material should either be verifiable or removed, and there's leeway for discussing verifiability and getting on with the verifying; this is much of why talk pages exists. But long-term unverified content is often wrong, and the safe bet for encyclopedic writing is to remove it; it can always be restored later if someone will source it. We don't need a tag that amounts to "I claim this is verifiable but refuse to do any work to verify it." That's just noise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Long-term uncited content is often correct, and is often only uncited because nobody thought it was worth finding a source for obvious information.

  Content that gets blanked is rarely restored. Remember Lock (water navigation)? More than half the article was blanked. Nobody genuinely believes that any of it was wrong. Almost none of it has been restored. Why? Because there isn't a self-appointed guardian for that article, and the missing content isn't visible to random passersby. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Maybe someone can explain how a good faith editor gets to "she didn't want to do all that work herself, so she set it up to work for the citation-adding game" without violating WP:AGF? Aren't we *required* to treat it as a serious challenge under most (almost all) circumstance? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  That's exactly the problem. There are statements for which both of the following are true:

  • I'd like to make the statement visible to the people who use Wikipedia:Citation Hunt, and
  • I'm not making a serious WP:CHALLENGE, and I'd like other editors to known that I'm not concerned at all about whether the statement is verifiable.

  In our current setup, there is no way to do both of these things at the same time. I can either make the statement visible in CH (and risk someone blanking it months-to-years later as still-uncited CHALLENGED material) or I can not tag it at all (and not get help from the people who like to add sources). We currently have no way to do both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

  Citation Hunt has its own talk page, and so does the article. The solution is to post at one of these places or both, not put a reader-facing tag in the article that seems like a reliability alert (and which can legitimately be interpreted that way) but which is intended as just some kind of note-to-editors-not-readers. "Use the right tool for the purpose."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see a problem there, you shouldn't be able to do that. Wikipedia would not be better if you could. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  How would Wikipedia be harmed by encouraging the addition of inline citations without penalizing the content if it doesn't happen on someone else's personal timeline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  There is no penalization of the content to begin with, its a false choice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Fact: Half of Lock (water navigation) was blanked because the {{cn}} tags weren't replaced with refs within about a month.
  • Unsupported assertion: Content isn't penalized by being tagged.

  Which of these do you expect me to believe? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Would something like "Inline citation?" fit what you looking for? A tag designed to highlight that a citation might be needed, rather than that a citation is needed. It still wouldn't stop content from being removed, editors are allowed to remove content for all sorts of reason even if it is accompanied by an inline citation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think something like that would work, so long as editors agreed that it had a different meaning. Perhaps ^{[inline citation]} or ^{[citation wanted]} or something like that, or even an invisible one. (An invisible template could still trigger automated tools, but without visually drawing attention to itself/away from more urgent problems.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  An invisible template could work, if it added the article to a maintenance category it would be easily tracked, and a user script could be made to make them visible to anyone that was interested (although I say all this without the technical knowledge to achieve such a thing). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I meant to add that although I may not have the technical knowledge I was basing this on that templates can be invisible ({{use dmy}} for instance), templates can add articles to tracking categories ({{citation needed}} being a prime example), and script can add notices that are otherwise invisible (Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors tracks errors that you can't see without a userscript). So it seems possible that a template/script setup could achieve all three. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Requirement that sources be understandable

I thought that the verifiability or a related policy (perhaps NOR) had a section saying that if a source needed an expert to interpret it in a way that supported the text, it was not permissible. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you thinking of point 3 of WP:PRIMARY? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This may be related, but I've repeatedly run into older sources that are best described as either obfuscatory or obscurantist. Most of the time this is due to archaic writing styles, which tend to avoid clarity with a preference towards ambiguity and even whimsical prose. Other times, it may be due to specialists writing outside their field. For example, this recently happened to me when I was trying to source an article about a church. It turns out, the history of the church was partially written by academic zoologists, who didn't understand how to write about history. In my opinion, only an expert about that particular religious sect could really understand what the source was trying to say, which made me abandon the source altogether. I've also found a similar phenomenon at work in older art criticism, particularly from the mid to late 19th century. Such criticism can sometimes border on outright fantasy, and I've had to be very careful using it on Wikipedia. In one specific example that was discussed on the refdesk, a piece of art criticism was composed by someone who may not have ever seen the work of art that they described. Instead, they invented an idealized description of the work and set it to poetry, which confused the actual description of the work as it appears in reality. While not exactly obfuscatory or obscurantist, it certainly approached a level of fabulism that I've never seen before. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

IMO the core policies don't require actual source reliability which would be expertise and objectivity with respect to the item which cited it. (that would be a good addition) But I think that the RS noticeboard typically does consider those things. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you misread my comment, as it has nothing to do with source reliability, but verifiability. In the first example I gave, one couldn't understand the source about the history of the church unless one was an expert. The way it was written made it impenetrable to non-experts. In the second example, one could not understand that the art criticism was erroneous unless one was knowledgeable about art history. Viriditas (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Thanks for your post. While I admittedly did stray from the OP (and I think so did you), IMHO I did understand your post and IMHO my comment was relevant to it. Your posts were not actually about understand-ability of an expert source but were in fact about wiki-editor needing expertise to understand that the source was not knowledgeable/objective regarding the text which cited it. North8000 (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding archaic writing style, I view it in the same vein as foreign languages; we allow sources in a foreign language that would require one to be an expert in that language to understand it, so likewise we should allow sources written in a style that can only be read by experts in that style. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I would caution against adding to V any requirement that a secondary source be understandable without special expertise. Wikipedia has large amounts of technical content that would then become unsourceable. This content is, in my opinion, one of the most valuable things about the encyclopedia, because it greatly expands access to technical knowledge, provided the reader is willing to put in the work to acquire the necessary background (much of which can also be found in Wikipedia, again if you're willing to put in the work). --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I add that any such rule would end up, in practice, with a definition of "an expert is anyone who knows more about the subject than the editor complaining that he personally can't understand it". We get enough of this now; we don't need an Official Rule™ that says if WP:RANDY can't understand it, then the source can't be used. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes it is just impossible for any meaningful writing on a topic to be understood by non-experts; just take a look at any of the articles in Category:Category theory or their references. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Double plus good! unlose Oldspeak NadVolum (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

This seems like two different topics commingled: The first is a question of whether the source is parseable by someone with the skills to interpret it. If so, it's a valid source, and is the same issue as citing a non-English work. E.g., there are various published facsimile editions of census records and other historical documents, which require considerable experience in interpretation of pre-modern handwriting. They are not invalid sources. But other examples above seem to be sources that are of dubious reliability, because they are by non-experts in the topic, are just opinion (including poetry or other art that is inspired by the topic), or are otherwise not stating facts (or WP:AEIS of facts) on which we can rely. These are a different class of things than works difficult to parse for linguistic-skills reasons, and they clearly can't contribute to verifiability, because they do not count as WP:RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

That really only applies to primary sources... We want to avoid OR but that doesn't mean that we exclude a gold star statistics paper which isn't comprehensible to the non-statistically literate (I personally find Japanese language sources to be incomprehensible, that doesn't mean that Japanese language sources can't be used by editors who do speak the language). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

A statistics paper, or most academic research papers, would of course be primary sources to begin with unless they are review articles or letters.

It's ok to just say that for articles where WP:CIR applies, the same may apply for some of its sources. SamuelRiv (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

If I understand the categories correctly, a research paper claiming a novel result is a primary source for that result, but it may repeat results from other papers, and for those I think it's technically a secondary source. Probably not usually an ideal one, as the choice of what results to cite is so directly influenced by the work of the paper itself. A survey article is generally a better secondary source, because it selects material that workers in the field have found to be important. --Trovatore (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

It depends as much on what within the source you are referencing and what text you are using it to support. For example, a citation to the "Methods" section of a meta-analysis review would be almost certainly use of a primary source. Likewise, a citation to the "Introduction" section of virtually any paper, where they do a brief literature review and maybe opine on the state of the field, would be secondary, but not necessarily of any quality. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a thought -- a source not being understandable to most readers (or editors) is no more disqualifying for V than a source not being accessible to most readers (print archives only, e.g.). The text (written faithfully) is still independently verifiable at the end of the day.

My experience has been that poor use/misuse of sources is the more poignant problem than the sources being themselves intrinsically poor or unusable. It seems OP is suggesting an additional category of the latter, which wouldn't actually address the problem of people writing unverified text -- I think obscure sources are only problematic in that it takes a bit longer for such articles to be audited (a similar case to articles with large amounts of print sources). SamuelRiv (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

This RFC maybe of interest to this page

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/When there is no consensus either way may interest any watchers of this page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This was discussed above. I'd be very happy to have more comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok 84.15.183.2 (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB to WP:ABOUTSELF

We have a problem that WP:RS has a section, WP:SELFSOURCE [edit: and also WP:BLPSELFPUB in WP:BLP], that is a slightly modified copy-paste of WP:ABOUTSELF in WP:V. This is an issue for several reasons:

• ABOUTSELF is a policy, but anyone who is not aware of and familiar with it and only knows of SELFSOURCE is going to believe it is a "just a guideline" when it is not, and is apt to make incorrect editing and sourcing decisions on that basis, and make contrary-to-consensus arguments on that basis, either of which could be disruptive, and both of which are clearly undesirable.
• The rules specified in both locations are likely to confusingly and impermissibly WP:POLICYFORK over time; the wording at SELFSOURCE is already diverging a little from ABOUTSELF in subtle ways. [Or not so subtle; see concerns below about the extra line tacked onto the end of the SELFSOURCE version.]
• We just don't ever need to do anything like this in the first place with WP:P&G material. We have a WP:CREEP problem as it is, and nearly word-for-word recapitulating a quite long rule from one place at another two others is redundant, confusing, unhelpful, and silly.

There are [at least] three potential fixes for this, listed in the order I think they are the most sensible:

1. Remove the SELFSOURCE material in RS; retarget that shortcut to ABOUTSELF's location in V, and "advertise" the shortcut at that place instead; in RS, summarize ABOUTSELF in a sentence and cross-reference it, without an unnecessary and potentially confusing devoted section.
2. Keep a SELFSOURCE section in RS, possibly still with its SELFSOURCE shortcut, but replace the content with a couple-sentence summary of ABOUTSELF (and use {{Main|Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves}}), that particularly focuses on reliability for particular narrow things under certain circumstances, since that is the RS guideline.
3. Keep a section in RS at its current name, and replace the content with a sectional transclude of the content at ABOUTSELF (but with its shortcuts hidden with <noinclude>, so no one is confused into thinking these shortcuts target the RS guideline instead of the V policy); move the SELFSOURCE shortcut to the ABOUTSELF "home" location and retarget it to this policy section.

[And resolve the WP:BLPSELFPUB fork the same way.]

I would lean strongly toward Option 1, as 2 is still rather reundant and has POLICYFORK potential, and 3 is just weird (it's something we usually only do with documentation/help material, like technical information that pertains to multiple templates).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC); revised to account for BLPSELFPUB. 16:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with option 1, having the same content in two different places isn't good, and directly oppose option 3. The only major difference between the two currently appears to be the final sentence of SELFSOURCE, appending this to ABOUTSELF would make SELFSOURCE redundant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I also support doing the same with the BLP version. It varies even less from the V version, and doesn't contain anything else BLP specific. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 seems like more or less the best path, I would like to see discrete discussions about the differences between the two though. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water, if indeed there even is a baby under the suds. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 seems the way to go. Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with option 1. I've added a text comparison below, for any interested editors. Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if it matters for this discussion, but there's also WP:BLPSELFPUB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Argh! Yeah, consider that extra copy included in this merge proposal as well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I too like option 1, and generally prefer the blended version proposed below (see there for my caveat). Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I may have more time to look into this later/weigh in on which option to go with, but for now just wanted to note that it's refreshing to see significant effort being put into reducing CREEP/policy forking, and I'm inclined to strongly support a merge in some fashion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I support Option 1, and without getting into the weeds, the latest ideas for merging the material look pretty strong. The bottom line for me is we don't have this material duplicated in multiple spots. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 22:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

side-by-side comparison of current SELFSOURCE, ABOUTSELF, and BLPSELFPUB text

WP:RS	WP:V	WP:BLP
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The Wikipedia article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.	Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to material published by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.	There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Notes

Schazjmd (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added highlighting to the differences. Yellow for where they have different wording, and blue where they have additional wording. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at them side by side… I prefer the version in WP:RS. It is much clearer. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer a slightly blended version, cutting some of the blue areas in the RS version and using 'usually' rather than 'especially'.

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources.

-- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Works for me, too, except keep the mention of LinkedIn, which is the dominant business social-networking site.

But see also the thread above this one, about a logic inclarity. The first sentence should probably read "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves or their authors" if this is meant to treat a publication itself as a usable source for what the publication actually says, as well as treat a publication by someone as usable for certain things about its author. If it's not actually meant to encompass that (despite a frequent interpretation that it does), then it should instead say something like "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about their authors". The problem with the original wording is that "themselves" has a referent of "self-published or questionable sources" (only) and that is not the intent (regardless which of the alternative intents are the correct one).

Also, an argument can be made to remove "or questionable sources", or change it to "and questionable sources", since either we mean this to pertain to self published sources in general, or to self-published sources that are also questionable (e.g. by not being by experts), but we cannot mean "self-published sources or questionable sources" since nothing in the material here pertains to questionable sources that are not self-published, and questionable sources are covered in a section above self-published ones, though the latter are arguably a subset of the former.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I would say that the intent should be "...about themselves or their authors", given that a source is almost by definition a reliable source for the content of that source (although only sometimes and never exclusively the interpretation of that source). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see subject as an issue. When primary sourcing a book to itself the subject is still book, using a book abouts it's author is still the author as the subject writing about themselves. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's still a syntax error though, since the subject of "themselves" is "self-published or questionable sources", so technically the authors can never resolve to "themselves" in the construction. It's a technical point, but I've learned the hard way to never leave such an interpretation loophole open in policy material or someone will wikilawyer it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic digression into particular articles and how to source them

(edit conflict) I like all of that except the final sentence, which needs exceptions. For example, articles where the subject is a work, list of works/products/things operated/etc. In such articles there can often be no or limited alternatives to self-sourcing the bulk of the article (by volume of text) - the externally sourced information that demonstrates the topic's notability sometimes only exists in a parent article. See List of London Underground stations for example, where the great majority of the article is sourced to Transport for London (the operator). This isn't confined to list articles, either, articles about specific legislation can have plenty of external references but the majority of the text being supported by non-independent sources (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 is not the greatest example, but one I was reading recently). Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC) I'm not against modifying or removing the last sentence. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Those don't look like articles we should be holding up as examples, those are articles which need to be re-written to comply with our standard not ones which justify modifying our standards to allow that sort of lazy editing or bad articles. If it can't be rewritten using better sources than it should be deleted as non-notable based on a lack of independent coverage and if it can then your argument is worthless because its predicated on the primary sources being the only possible sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC) I think Thryduulf's point is that there are more than enough independent sources with in-depth coverage of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 for it to be notable, but insufficient secondary material to provided the bulk of the detailed specifics about what the legislation says. Since the legislation is, by our definition, a suitable ABOUTSELF source for its own content, that's not a problem, until "the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources" (in the guideline not the policy) contradicts this, and essentially we have a micro-WP:POLICYFORK right in the same section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Isn't the logical conclusion there that "the bulk of the detailed specifics about what the legislation says" simply aren't due? That seems much simpler than the suggestion that policy or guideline need to be rewritten. The point of a wikipedia article of that sort isn't to host the text of the source, even if the source is a reliable source for that text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC) @SMcCandlish has it right. The consensus has been, time and again, that these sorts of articles belong in Wikipedia and, where there are no legal considerations, policy must be descriptive of actual practice not dictate what practice should be. With the exception of the single sentence that is proposed to be added to the policy, the policy is currently descriptive. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC) And it's not a DUE problem, because there is no conflict between the primary source saying what it actually does say, and secondary sources summarizing it in more general terms. A DUE problem would be most secondary sources summarizing it as meaning one thing, but an outlier source claiming it means something else, then Wikipedia treating these two positions as if on equal footing. DUE is very clear that it is a rule to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". But what the source literally says is not a "viewpoint" to balance against any other viewpoint, it's simply an observable fact.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Are we talking about basic biographic information (what I think you mean by observable fact) or are we talking about "detailed specifics" because ABOUTSELF only allows the first, it doesn't allow the second. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Nothing in this diversion is particular to bios; how could you think that exmples pertaining to a piece of legislation and to a list of subway stations are "about basic biographic information"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Biographic used loosely... It doesn't matter what the source is, we're supposed to summarize it... Not reproduce it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC) And nothing about this policy section or revisions thereof has anything to do with that. I think you are thinking of WP:NOFULLTEXT and WP:Quotations#General guidelines. Either that, or you are trying inapporiately to turn a minor merge-and-revision discussion about long-extant policy material into a referendum on whether the policy material should exist at all, in which case you should open a proposal at WP:VPPOL to remove WP:ABOUTSELF and its two copies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Thryduulf is literally trying to turn a minor merge-and-revision discussion about long-extant policy material into a referendum on whether the policy material should exist at all. They are using this discussion to advance a claim to a longstanding consensus which does not actually appear to exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Which information sourced to a primary source in the London Underground article couldn't be sourced to a secondary or tertiary source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Some of it probably could be, but what would be the point? Why would a secondary source that quotes factual information from a primary source be more reliable than the primary source? Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Are you asking why we prefer secondary and tertiary sources over primary ones? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict) Was about the say the same thing Thryduulf did. If a self-published source says (and I'll use a bio example because that seems to be what Horse Eye's Back wants to bend the discussion to) "I quit university in 1993 because I was tired of schoolwork, and I'd just landed a great job in the field I was studying anyway, so passing that up to continue studying to get a similar job later seemed silly – and expensive. I didn't go back to school for a really long time, until 2007, and didn't finally finish my degree until 2009.", there is no point in citing a secondary source that says "In 1993, Smith quit college to take a job.", and relies on the same primary source for the information in the first place, while losing detail in the process. (For WP, it would be better to not quote it, but summarize as something like "After getting a job in the field of her univerisity study in 1993, Smith left her studies for many years, but completed her degree in 2009.") Robotically regurgitating factoids is not what secondary sources are useful for; they are required for analysis, evaluation, interpretation, and synthesis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC) If we have to have a discussion about why secondary and tertiary sources are preferred over primary ones I don't know if I can help you. Should we re-write WP:V? What about WP:OR? "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." is pretty hard to misconstrue even if you appear to have done so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This is not a thread about substantively rewriting an entire policy (much less two of them). And you seem to be confused into thinking that "to a lesser extent" means "never to any extent". Please stop derailing this thread, which is about merging and (non-substantively copyediting in the process) a small subsection of policy).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC) "removing from the policy altogether." is not non-substantively copyediting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC) It's not in the policy, it's in a guideline that has forked from the policy. Please pay closer attention to the details in discussions like this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Thats a direct quote. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Please just stop. The material under dispute is quoted from the guideline version, at RS, not the policy verson, in V. If you cannot follow the basic facts of the discussion (including being able to figure out on your own what is really obviously meant when someone has a "policy" for "guideline" typo in a post, about material in a guideline that cannot possibly be removal of material from a policy since it is not a policy), then this is probably not a discussion in which you are going to be helpful. And your self-important "I don't know if I can help you" sarcasm above is in no way constructive. Virtually every sentence in every post you've made here shows confusion about this policy, about which page what material is in, how one policy relates to another, and/or how policy is actually interpreted. You are clearly not in a position to "help" anyone understand this material. Cf. Dunning–Kruger effect.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) Its not sarcastic, its suggesting that the differences are likely ones of theory not understanding. We do in fact prefer secondary sources, I don't believe my understanding is a result of the Dunning–Kruger effect. I would appreciate if you could make this 90% less personal and confrontational. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC) This digression into picking at particular articles and arguing about your personal interpretation of how policy should be applied is simply off-topic. If you want to pursue it anyway, then please at very least start a new thread here or at VPPOL about how you want to interpret the synergy of these policies and guidelines as applied to particular kinds of cases, if you don't want to continue dwelling on particular examples, which is a matter for their talk pages and/or for FAR. PS: The fact that WP "prefer[s] secondary sources" is obvious and unchanged. "Prefer" does not mean "use exclusively". This is not the thread for arguing for a substantive change in policy and its application, against most or all use of primary sources for anything.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC) If Thryduulf is mistaken/misspoken thats one thing, but nobody is arguing for "a substantive change in policy and its application, against most or all use of primary sources for anything." nor has anyone even mentioned that as far as I can tell. Where is that coming from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong feeling about which variation to unify on, but the fact that they differ as much as they do makes clear that there is a problem and that we should fix it by having this in one place. Which is to say, I support the merge proposal in general terms. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge. I like ActivelyDisinterested's proposal - and I agree the last sentence could be modified - or limited to biographies, since there are many pages where there can and the sources should be to a primary document. --Enos733 (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  I hope this isn't a tangent, but shouldn't all this generally also apply to organizations, not just biographies? I would, for instance, accept from an organization's website or press releases what year it was founded and by whom. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Are you thinking of wording like "themselves/itself"? I've always read WP:ABOUTSELF as applying to orgs as well as people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, I was just responding to Enos733 saying the last sentence (Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent source?) should be limited to bios. It seems like it doesn't need to be limited to bios, not that we necessarily need to specify "themselves/itself" to make it clear that it also applies to orgs. Valereee (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  If this sentence is going to appear anywhere then it needs a different scope - "bios" is too narrow, "all articles" is too broad, "organisations" is too blunt (either alone or in combination). At this point it's getting far too complicated to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why is all articles too broad? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Because community consensus is that some articles, some examples given above, having the majority of content self-sourced is acceptable (possibly even desirable in some cases). Thryduulf (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Examples of articles were given (neither actually met the criteria they were provided for though), examples of community consensus along those lines have not been presented. Would be very helpful if you could provide those if they do indeed exist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic digression again into particular articles and how to source them

List of London Underground stations, one of the examples above, is a featured list. I'm not sure what stronger consensus there could be. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC) It was a featured list in 2005. If you think that the featured list status reflects current consensus feel free to nominate it for re-evaluation against the modern standard. You also haven't demonstrated what information which is sources to primary sources in there can't be sourced to better sources, which is the core of your argument. I also think you should review the version which was given FL status, [2] although I assume you are familiar with it given "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) at 12:22, 7 December 2005 (rv my addition of openeing dates to A and B sections. See talk.). " Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC) If you want to challenge an FA/FL, WP:FAR is thattaway, and it's no one else's job to do that work for you. If you have issues with the sourcing at a particular article, that's a matter for that article's talk page. This is not the venue for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd also accept things like their official website, their earnings, the identities of the executives, the number of employees and locations they have, and similar factual matters. I'd also accept press releases and similar statements as representing the view of the organisation on certain matters (e.g. if they were notably accused of something, I'd accept their press release as a suitable source for their response to the accusation). In most cases however articles about (commercial) organisations should indeed not be mostly based on self-sourced material - there may be exceptions and this is not necessarily going to apply to articles about an organisations' products or services. Regardless of subject, the volume of text is not always going to be an appropriate measure of sourcing (e.g. there could be a large and uncontroversial (mostly) self-sourced history or description section comprising a majority of the text, but with the rest of the article being (almost) entirely sourced to multiple third parties). An article about a for-profit organisation in a highly competitive sector is a different beast to an article about e.g. a non-political governmental body that has spent decades just quietly and uncontroversially going about its business. The more I think about it, the less I think any sentence like this can work as a policy and guidance is probably best left to more focused guideline pages. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I've always read it the same as Gråbergs Gråa Sång, a company or organisation is still the subject of an ABOUTSELF statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It does already apply to organizations (we regularly use it this way), and the text doesn't saying anything about individual human authors. A scientific committee, a company, a band, etc. writing collectively are also an author for this purpose. But see above where I highlight the problem that the concept of "author" is actually missing from the wording, and "themselves" only syntactically refers to "self-published or questionable sources", which is not the actually intended meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Was there a consensus on this regarding the application of WP:ABOUTSELF sources. I agree that an organizations page can be used as a source when it comes to the organization's responses to scenarios. As the example above "e.g. if they were notably accused of something, I'd accept their press release as a suitable source for their response to the accusation." If there then was a secondary source that covered this, they would take the quote from the organization page anyway. XZealous (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Attempt at a redrafted merge

Based on above comments and concerns, this is what I would run with probably:

A self-published, questionable source may be used as a source of information about itself or its author, usually in the article about the subject, without the above requirement that the author be a published expert in the field, so long as: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article should usually be drawn from independent sources.

Since policy-writing is hard, here's a run-down on what specifically this does:

• Switch to singular for simplicity and clarity. Make it clear that "the requirement" is in the material just above, since people are apt to reach this material by shortcut not by reading the page top-to-bottom.
• Fix the original's "or questionable" construction, which grammatically meant "any self published source or any questionable source", when nothing in this self-publishing exception is meant to pertain to questionable sources of other types (enumerated higher up the policy page) that aren't self-published. Just close that loophole so no one can wikilawyer that non-self-published questionable sources are included because of the "or". See "Possible tweak 3" below for additional clarity.
• Fix the unclear wording in the original, which had the problem that authors were never mentioned at all, and that "themselves" and "they" only grammatically had a subject of "self-published [...] sources", thus syntactically could not apply to authors, despite the intent being to include both the works and the authors. The pronouns were confusingly being used with different intended referents from clause to clause.
• Keep the final sentence from the RS version, but moderate it to no longer directly conflict with the fact that source publications are self-sources for their own content. [Update: There is already some disagreement below about this part; i.e., the revision of it did not resolve the original objections to it above.]
• Keep the LinkedIn example, since it's the dominant business social-networking site.

Possible tweak 1: Add a note below the list: "Author" includes an organizational one, not just an individual.

Possible tweak 2: Add a foonote: An example of an exception to "majority ... should usually be drawn from independent sources": an article on a piece of legislation and its specifics, about which the coverage in secondary sources so far is more general despite still being in-depth and reliable.

Possible tweak 3: Just remove the ", questionable", leaving "Self-published sources may ...". We should probably go with that, because the only self-published sources that are not questionable-by-definition are some self-publications by experts on a particular topic, but here the author's own life is not that subject of expertise, so the "experts escape clause" for considering that self-published work not in the questionable category does not apply. From an alternative viewpoint, everyone is a subject-matter expert on themself (but that's not really what we mean by "expert" here). Either way, the "Self-publisihed, [or] questionable" longer phrase is not useful.

Possible tweak 4: Include the footnote from the RS version, which was just skipped in the above discussion (but fix the typo in it). The footnote is correct as to how these rules are applied.

Possible tweak 5: Revise the heading to better agree with all this, as suggested in the thread immediately above the merge thread.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If all of these tweaks were accepted, the entire section would look like the following:

Self-published sources for claims about themselves or their authors "WP:SOCIALMEDIA" redirects here. For the policy on what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. "WP:TWITTER" redirects here. For the external links essay, see WP:Twitter-EL. For a template used for citing tweets, see Template:Cite tweet. For community evaluation of Twitter as a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Twitter. See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Statements of opinion A self-published source may be used as a source of information about itself or its author, usually in the article about the subject, without the above requirement that the author be a published expert in the field, so long as: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. "Author" includes an organizational one, not just an individual. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and LinkedIn. Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article should usually be drawn from independent sources. [... rest of page ... ] Notes [... rest of page's notes ... ]

[Update: Material highlighted now in pink is subject to some continuing concern, below.]

Examples of source types in BLPSELFPUB: That version of the text included two examples of self-published source types (press releases and websites). I bring this up because BLP is also a policy, not a guideline, so elminating those examples during the merge without discussing it first would be an undiscussed change to policy. So, to discuss it and moot that point: I think they should be excluded because the "Self-published sources" general section just above ABOUTSELF already provides such examples.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 19:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC); "the subject" concision tweak 20:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The final sentence just needs removing from the policy altogether. It's guidance on sourcing that is irrelevant to verifiability (it speaks to notability) which has many exceptions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I can go along with that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the argument for removing that but not number 5? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The rationale for removing it is discussed in detail above, as you well know since you are part of that discussion already. Number 5 of what? If you mean tweak 5 in the material above, that has nothing to do with the final sentence, from SELFSOURCE at RS, that is under discussion (and tweak 5, to the wording of the heading, hasn't been objected to by anyone). Again, please pay closer attention to the discussion details. This constant stream of largely off-topic and confused naysaying comments and questions from you is not contributing helpfully to the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Check the indenting, I wasn't asking you. Sorry for any confusion or apparent naysaying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Well aware of the indent level. I'm objecting to you wasting everyone's time asking for a rationale that has already been provided in detail. Also asking what you mean by something else (and addressing what I think it means, since I wasn't sure you'd answer the question – and in fact you did not).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what I mean't by "something else" when did I say it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Never mind on that bit; I misunderstood you as probably referring to tweak 5 of the proposal description when on re-reeading I now get that you meant numbered list item 5 inside the draft material. Sorry about that!  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No worries... If I can clarify... The argument given above about there being a longstanding consensus that articles can be primarily based on self published primary sources applies equally to point 5 and to the sentence at the very end. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that the the sentence at the very end is almost entirely redundant, it just restates point 5. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not overly attached to the last sentence, it does in effect just re-itterate point five that states that articles shouldn't be primarily based on such sources.
I still don't believe there is any need for the author or the source as a work as that doesn't appear anywhere before and is just a long winded way of saying 'subject'. No-one is going to misunderstand that. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough; "subject" would seem to have a clear enough referent in "itself or its author", so I switched to that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see a need for 1 or 2, agree with 3 questionable isn't needed, am ambivalent about 4 per my comment above, and agree with 5 the new header is a better fit. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Tweak 2 would go away if the disputed final sentence from the RS version goes away. If you don't actually object to tweak 1, it addresses some confusion about the point that was raised as a concern above, and it's "cheap" in being very concise. I didn't see you comment specifically about the RS footnote in 4, just omit it from a draft, so I wasn't sure that was intentional or what the rationale might be.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:47, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Issue 1 goes away by sticking with about themselves, which doesn't need clarifying in anyway. No-one is going to not understand that 'themselves' is refering to the subject of the ABOUTSELF statement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, but we already had that wording, and the confusion arose anyway. In the discussion above is outright wondering (by a admnin not a noob) about whether organizational/corporate authors qualify, despite most of us agreeing that they do and always have, and it's not the first time this has come up, e.g. in sourcing discussions at various article. Just stating that it doesn't only apply to individual authors is a quick and painless way to put that confusion down forever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the switch to singular, I don't think it makes it clearer or less complex. Its not a merge at that point, its a rewrite. (update: a subsequent edit has improved the clarity and reduced the complexity but I'd still prefer something closer to a mirror) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

We're also copyediting here, and it has no effect on the meaning and applicability of the material. "I don't like" isn't much to work with; is there something demonstrably unhelpful with the singular version? Here it is with plurality restored, and it seems much harder to parse: Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves or their authors, usually in the articles about the subjects, without the above requirement that the authors be published experts in the field, so long as:... In what way(s) would that be an improvement? One issue I see quickly is that "articles about the subjects" implies an article that covers both the work and (not or) the author. A minor one is that "field" being singular is a mismatch for the rest of the syntax, but changing it to "fields" (not in the original) reads weirdly. Honestly, this switch to singular is the kind of edit I and various others would probably do WP:BOLDly without discussing it first, because it's non-substantive but easier to understand and a little more concise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The reason that field singular reads weird is that you've inserted authors plural before it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

No, I mean that making that word plural reads weird. Try it yourself: "without the above requirement that the authors be published experts in the fields". It sounds like we're talking about pastures. But swiching to "author must be an expert in the field" conflicts with previous consistent plurality: "sources ... sources ... themselves ... authors ... articles ... subjects ..." Using "authors must be experts in the field" isn't awful, but in a sentence that is otherwise consistently pluralized it kind of sticks out. Just one of several artifacts of using the plurals here.

More importantly, neither you nor HEB have said what you think is better about the plural approach and worse about the singular one, which was the point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Established" or "published"? It is probably worth considering whether we should change the policy's "established expert" to the guideline's "published expert", which was done without detailed discussion of the change in one of the earlier drafts. The controling policy section for that language is WP:SELFPUB and it says "established" not "published" (and it is possible to be an expert, established as such in independent reliable sources, without being a published author, though probably not in academia; those who qualify are usually heads of organizations, with their editorially-controlled publications coming out with authorship attributed to the organization not the person). I don't see any actual point to changing the original "established" to "published", and the inconsistency might confuse someone.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:08, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The SPS requirement is published not established, so the V version is wrong in this case. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think its wrong SPS is part of V. Its not one or the other, its both... They need to the both an an established subject-matter expert *and* independently published, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Also note that its "may be" not "are" this is a bar below which nothing can be considered a self-published expert source... Not a bar over which everything is considered a self-published expert source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"expert in the field" is the same as "subject matter expert", it's just two ways of saying the same thing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, and I guess "established subject-matter expert ... published by reliable, independent publications", though itself rather poorly worded, does seem be summed up well enough with "published expert", so any concern I had about changing from "established expert" to "published expert" in the ABOUTSELF material has been assuaged.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The only part of SPS that is important, and isn't part of that is "reliable, independent". Published expert covers enough here, but SPS has to cover 'experts' in woo published by the woo's on publisher. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I would actually delete point five and keep the last sentence and footnote. Point 5 is unclear, while the sentence describes the intent. --Enos733 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well, that would be a substantive change to two policies at once (the same no. 5 language is also in BLP), so we'd need a strong consensus for it, and so far more seem to be against including the longer RS version. It would change a "primarily" standard to "great majority", which can be seen as a change from "50% or more" to something like "90% or more". After some more careful thought, I realize that the version of the RS sentence as tweaked above is also substantive in being permissive of potential exceptions ("should usually be" vs. RS's original "must be") when no. 5's original wording isn't so flexibly worded, even if V's quantitative expectation is looser than RS's. I meant well, trying to address Thryduulf's observations, but softening guideline language and including it in with a redundancy merge and grammar fix in a policy would actually be quite substantive after all, and that was an error on my part.

  The two kinds of exceptions Thryduulf raised (as already long-existing, no matter what RS and even V say) can be generalized as 1) "Articles on detailed non-fiction works, such as legislation or technical standards, which are notable but summarized in secondary sources in insufficient detail for proper encyclopedic treatment"; and "Articles on subjects, often in side-articles on sub-topical detail that have been split from main ones for length reasons, that provide lists of detailed facts, e.g. all the stops on a transit line, for which a single primary source is authoritative, and secondary sources simply repeat the details from it." Espresso Addict below has come up with additional cases. But at least one editor has raised questions about whether this kind of exception is legitimate. There does seem to be a conflict between a strict intepretation of the policy (even without RS's version) vs. actual practice even at the Featured Content level. That sounds like a very different discussion to me than a merge-and-cleanup; it should probably be an RfC (which might be a more efficient way to get at the question than doing some selective FARs, or AfDs, or one-article talk page RfCs, or whatever, and just hoping they come to consistent conclusions). Ultimately, it's a good thing that this merge thread has incidentally identified something else that does need clearer resolution, even if it's a later, separate discussion to have.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  My list was just a quick off the top of my head effort, I'm sure there are many other examples of articles where the encyclopedia has for a decade or two harboured uncontroversial material that is primarily self/employer referenced without anyone objecting until recently. I think we do need to be very careful on this point because I have recently encountered editors who appear to want to delete articles with adequate reliable independent sources, based on the fact that chunks of them are only sourceable to self-sources. If that's the community will, so be it, but I don't want to wander into that valley eyes shut. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Good point. My sense is that the community is generally fine with the using non-independent, but verifiable sources for the types of articles that Espresso Addict mentions (and there are probably more), but it seems the section was largely written to address concerns that may arise in BLPs (self-promotion through social media) or self-promotion by organizations, not the use of non-independent sourcing more generally (where the sourcing is for fact and self-promotion is not [as much of] a concern). - Enos733 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would add that if anyone makes an argument to delete an entire article on the basis of one or more sections in it being self-sourced (or even unsourced) when other material is sourced (and the sourcing is enough for WP:GNG), then they are making a classic WP:SURMOUNTABLE fallacy and should be called on it (specifically it's a combination of WP:NOEFFORT, "this part isn't properly sourced yet", and WP:RUBBISH, "this is just crap"). Also fails WP:PRESERVE, and automatically also fails WP:BEFORE, since not only did the deletion nominator not look for sources they didn't even look in our own article for the sources it already has. As for whether unsourced material should just be removed from the article without deleting the article, that's already governed by WP:V even without any of the wording in this subsection: material has to be verifable, and if it's challenged (or is about a BLP) it has to be verified with an inline citation; plus also WP:BURDEN: if stuff with no citation at all, or something dubious with only a self-cite, is removed, the burden will be on the keeper to find secondary sources for it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd strongly prefer entirely removing "Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article should usually be drawn from independent sources." As has been said, there are many wholly/relatively uncontroversial applications of self sourcing (eg plot summaries, academics notable under WP:PROF, government bodies) where it might well be appropriate for much of the text of the article to be sourced to related sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Counter proposal to merge with the minimum of changes

Self-published sources may be used as a source of information about themselves, usually in the article about the subject, without the above requirement that they are a published expert in the field, so long as: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

This is mostly the V version with small parts from the RS version. Specifically correctly enticing that the SPS requirement is being published not established, and subject not source. It doesn't include the final sentence from the RS version, as the fifth point already makes the same statement.
The purpose here would be to merge the three sections as a first step. Any other changes could then be discussed while there is only one version of the guidance rather than three. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As second choice, sure. I wouldn't outright oppose it, since it gets the basic work of the merge done, but it doesn't address issues which would just need to be dealt with in further discussion(s) later. It would be simpler and cleaner and less bureaucratic to do it all in one pass. E.g. this still has the basic syntax problem of "themselves" only having a grammatically possible referent of "self-published sources" not the authors of the sources. It's a loophole for wikilawyering against treating the SPS as reliable for basic facts about the author rather than about the publication. Using "the subject" later doesn't fix that: its clear referent in this construction is also "self-published sources", since the author is not mentioned (and only with a confusing "they" which has no referent at all and conflicts with the previous "themselves" in the same sentence) until later in the material. We should not be resistant to just using plain English here. Saving a tiny handful of words at the cost of badly confusing language is not worth it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

PS: If I seem insistent about this, it's primarily because of the "Consensus set the new wording we have, so we mustn't change it even if it's crappy" ossification that can easily happen (e.g., this sentiment has derailed further attempts to improve MOS:GENDERID for several years, with hardened reluctance to change even a single word of something arrived at through an RfC despite it clearly having problems; it's as if "consensus can change – but not in this lifetime"). Please let's avoid coming to a consensus-of-temporary-convenience on faulty wording just because it would be easier/faster.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely change should always be allowed, but my point was that the merge can be done quickly while any changes are going to take longer. Why hold the merge back, when it's such a easy thing to accomplish. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I just said why: because the extant language is demonstrably faulty, and there is apt to be more resitance to repairing it post- than pre-merge.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

You said why because you believe the current language is faulty. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear why you are repeating my own point. If the grammar is screwed up (which it certainly is in the original material), then we just fix the grammar and get on with our lives. It has no effect on the intended applicability of the policy; it's just basic copyediting.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry with added emphasis for clarity, "You said why because you believe the current language is faulty". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There is no "belief" involved. This is a simple matter of basic English grammar parsing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

This might be a little bit beyond "basic" grammar. Problems like pronoun antecedents are not always obvious to everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Again we disagree on the use of language. You believe that you are right, I do not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

SMcCandlish is correct about the grammar question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Which form of grammervis require by policy? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll drop this, it's an argument that goes beyond this discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It is in everybody's interest for policies to be grammatically correct and unambiguous, and SMcCandlish is correct about the grammar in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Which grammar of which form of English, the formal grammar that you were taught that has little basis in everyday use? The argument for using a simple version without the need for overly complicate language necessitated by formal grammar rules is a matter of opinion, not something that can be proven true or false. If someone believes it is necessary for understanding that is again a matter of opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It's really about syntax; ("grammar" has multiple meanings, and the pertinent one here is grammatical relation, but only part of the syntax issues in the original sentence are grammatical in that exact sense). The issues are not particular to any dialect; there isn't a variety of English in which the original wording makes clear sense without potential for confusion and even opposite conclusions. (Even if there were some exception, the commonality principle is important; it does not help us in any way to have X% of editors understanding it one way and Y% interpreting it another, and Z% just not being sure what it's supposed to mean at all). See Zero0000's comment below for concrete proof of exactly the confusion we're talking about; that editor has come to something close to the opposite of the intended and best-accepted meaning. I know you've grown weary of this discussion, so I'm not going to reiterate the precise nature of the syntactical issues; they're already detailed step-by-step above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

None of that changes my prior point, and as I said previously one or two editors misunderstanding doesn't require making the changes. I'm happy to drop this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Re-drafted merge 3

Taking all the above on board, how about this? The entire subsection would look like the following (minus the colorization, which I'm using more accurately below, to account for three not two source versions, plus tweaks under discussion):

Self-published sources for claims about themselves or their authors

"WP:SOCIALMEDIA" redirects here. For the policy on what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA.

"WP:TWITTER" redirects here. For the external links essay, see WP:Twitter-EL. For a template used for citing tweets, see Template:Cite tweet. For community evaluation of Twitter as a source, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Twitter.

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Statements of opinion

A self-published source may be used as a source of information about itself or its author, usually in the article about the subject, without the above requirement that the author be a published expert in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.
2. It does not involve claims about third parties.
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

Author includes an organizational one, not just an individual. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

[... rest of page ... ]

Notes

[... rest of page's notes ... ]

Yellow = wording from V's version; blue = from RS's version; green = from BLP's version; pink = from the above discussion; lavender = proposed for removal below; no color = common to all (not including singular/plural tweaking). Hopefully, there's sufficient luminosity difference for anyone with color-blindness.

This: A) keeps the crime-denial footnote from BLP policy, B) deletes the RS codicil that was so objected to above (partly for being redundant with numbered point 5, and partly for having a different "great majority" standard from policy's "majority"); C) keeps my semantic repair to the opening sentence; D) has the "Author includes an organizational one' clarification; E) restores the boldfacing around the "about ..." clause in the opening sentence (markup that was present in all three original versions).

Can we live with this? It doesn't address Thryduulf's concerns that certain cases of academics and such might be affected, at least in theory, but that is already an issue with the extant wording in all three locations, and seems like something that must be addressed separately as a substantive policy clarification.

PS: I really don't care that much if the opening sentence is pluralized again, but it would make for more difficult-to-parse syntax: "Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves or their authors, usually in the article about the subject, without the above requirement that the authors be published experts in the field", potentially confusing because "the subject" and "the field" seem to need to remain singular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Footnote a (which might need to be tweaked at BLP as well as here) should end after "do not fall under this criterion". Such claims can merit inclusion in Wikipedia if they can also be sourced to reliable third party sources and their existence in this sort of source as well is irrelevant to matters of DUE, V, etc. Additionally, it's fine to use SPS as verification for matters of fact related to claims that source makes related to third parties but not to establish notability for those claims (for example if there is dispute about what someone actually said then citing the original source material is sometimes appropriate), but I'm undecided at present whether this needs spelling out.

"if they can also be sourced to reliable third party sources" would make them no longer a matter of claims only backed by self-published sources, so this whole subsection would no longer be applicable. And in a merge discussion we're not in a position to make a substantive change to the policy without derailing the process. If WP:BLP's footnote needs adjustment that should be a separate discusson.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This subsection not being applicable is the point of my proposal, however I have raised it at WT:BLP and we should maintain consistency with the outcome of that discussion here. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with bullet 5 using the word "primarily" because it's loose enough not to prohibit the types of article discussed above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I very much dislike all the new verbiage per CREEP. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The only new verbiage (other that a couple of words needed to make the grammar actually parse at all) is the "Author includes an organizational one, not just an individual." And we've seen above that people have been confused on this point. (If you'd prefer, this could be moved into another footnote instead of being put inline at the bottom.) All of the other material is in one policy, both policies, or the guideline. Oh, there is also the word "above", to make it clear where the expert rule actually is, since people will arrive at this subsection by shortcut, but no one raised any objection to this before. It's in your "minimal" version above, too, I would add.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

As I've said before, and repeatedly, I don't believe it's necessary or that it's been shown to be necessary. You can say the opposite, we disagree that's fine. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Will try to resolve this further in user-talk; I don't think an "agree to disagree" works when someone hasn't actually laid out a clear rationale for what their objection is (an "I don't like it" doesn't help). Clarifying unclear policy wording and merging redundant policies is entirely in keeping with all of the meaning and intent of WP:CREEP. Literally nothing in this discussion is adding any new rule or complicating an exiting one, but removing confusing and wikilawyerable ambiguity (which is complication and then some) from the existing one, and dropping a guideline-version codicil that is redundant with point 5.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I won't be replying on my userpage, I have laid out my objects previously. You have ignored them and continued. Just because I won't satisfy you by laying them out again in detail doesn't mean that I haven't "laid out a clear rationale", just that you disagree with my previous objections (and you are free to do so, but can't claim they don't exist). None of this is needed to merge the sections that is a separate issue, while the additions you are looking to make aren't needed. A couple of editors not seeing that "the subject" can refer to a person, concept or object doesn't require more text, but just a quick explanation by another editor. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I've re-read all your input into this entire thread. You have not laid out any "objects" at all. You just keep repeating that fixes are "not needed" and that "[you] don't see" any problem, with no rationale in support of that, after a great deal of explanation of why the syntax issues are a problem and fixes are needed, which you have not addressed, but just skip over and repeat that there's no problem to fix. That's just "I can't hear you", not discussion. You've offered an opinion that just doing a bare-minimum merge without addressing the syntax issues would be preferable to you than doing them both in one pass, which is no better or worse an opinion than mine in the opposite direction, other than that mine has been backed by reasons, and yours has not and is just an opinion in a vacuum. I've tried in two places now to get you to provide actual rationales beyond "I don't like it", and demonstrated in great detail that your "WP:CREEP" claim is not applicable [3]. So I'm at a loss for how to get past this stonewall. Meanwhile, I've acquiesced to and incorporated every single other wording tweak you have wanted, including: leaving off RS's redundant codicil, using RS's "usually" and "published" and "subject" and "pages from", using V's "as long as", etc. (and everyone else who cares seems to be going along with it all). This is feeling very one-sided: everyone must compromise except ActivelyDisinterested. Given that the present re-draft incorporates all of your "use this version not that one" merge preferences, all of which were in the direction of concision, I think you could budge an inch on the opening sentence being a tiny bit longer for the sake of clarity to everyone, even if you don't think the clarity problems will affect enough editors for you to personally care about.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Is anyone else objecting to these changes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Not that I've seen. Thryduulf had an issue with the RS codicil, which has been removed (and to the extent is might also be affected by point no. 5, common to all versions, it would be a substantive-change matter to take up as a separate proposal). Same goes for someone above's idea of cutting off the "and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia" ending of the BLP footnote (it's already policy material, so removing it would be a substantive policy change).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Again please do not continue to mischaracterise my arguments. Yes I have read you arguments and I'm not moved by them, I find it very hard to understand why you believe repeating them again will change my mind. As I've said repeatably I'm not going over the same points again. I'm not stonewalling, I just don't agree with you and we do not have to agree. Let other editors have their say, I'm happy for the consensus to be against me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

With the note, isn't this restating matters covered in BLP. Wouldn't a link to the relevant section of BLP be a better idea? This started as a discussion to remove duplication across different pages after all. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Not that I can find. It's consistent with WP:BLPCRIME but does not reiterate it. It's specific to the "BLPSELFPUB" fork for ABOUTSELF, covering a matter that the BLP regulars thought of or had to wrestle with that the V regulars did not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle. I'd like to suggest removing usually in the article about the subject as I think it's unnecessary, but my support is not conditioned on exclusion. — Frostly (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I could see that happening, since the clause advises/requires nothing and just makes an unnecessary observation. I blocked it out in lavender above in case others want to look it over and weigh in on whether to retain it (I suspect ActivelyDisinterested would favor removal, since they've been focused on concision). But since the clause is in one of the policies and the guideline, someone might think it substantive anyway. Even doing a basic syntax fix has bogged the process down. If this were punted for later, along with the definitely substantive questions about point 5 and the BLP footnote's closing, worse could happen.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing that phrase. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Me, too, for the record.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Support re-drafted merge 3 wording. I think it addresses the concerns of the majority of the participating editors. Schazjmd (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I question the rationale for removing "questionable". First, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources includes a link referring directly to this section. That clearly supports the presumption that "questionable" in this section is intentional and meaningful. The "without the self-published source requirement" clause is obviously irrelevant to non-self-published sources, but the numbered items 1–5 are, on their face, applicable to any questionable source. Questionable sources may be used as sources about themselves, subject to certain conditions, and here are five such conditions – nothing implausible or impertinent about that.

I also think ActivelyDisinterested makes a fair point about "about themselves" / "author". The word "source" has a broad range of meaning, which can simultaneously include a work or author or publisher, depending on context. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source (explaining the word "source"). Likewise in ordinary language, the word "published" or "self-published" is an adjective which can be applied to works and to writers. I doubt we really need to sprinkle "[the works] themselves or their authors" around, when "sources" is already a word for people or things. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

See Zero0000's incorrect belief immediately below that "author" is excluded from the intended meaning of "source", for a clear demonstration of why the publication/author clarity is needed. The very fact that "source" can be ambigious is itself the problem. We provably cannot rely on editors to consistently come to the conclusion that "source ... itself" means "the publication, the author, or both".

As for "questionable sources" (WP:QS), that is a sibling category in the same containing section ("Sources that are usually not reliable"), and QS means material "expressing views widely considered by other sources to be promotional, extremist, or relying heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor, or personal opinion." It already has wording that cross-references ABOUTSELF: "Questionable sources should be used only as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below." Mentioning them again in the ABOUTSELF subsection would be redundant, since the only use of a "questionable source" permitted in it is as a "self-published source" about "itself" (i.e. about that publication or its author[s]) – the fact that the specific source under consideration (having arrived at WP:ABOUTSELF via the WP:QS cross-reference) is also "questionable" is irrelevant to the material in the ABOUTSELF subsection. So, it's just unneeded repetitive verbiage. That is, using "Self-published or questionable sources" in this subsection doesn't make sense, since there are zero "questionable sources" that could apply in this subection that are not also self-published ones when it comes to the applicable material. As a concrete example, a questionable source like The Epoch Times, fully red-flagged at RSP, cannot be used for any claim about anything all, except as a self-published source about itself (and even then it would most likely not be usable anyway because any claim it made about itself would probably fail rule no. 1, at least in that particular case). Using "or questionable" here also can be misinterpreted as wrongly implying that questionable sources can be used with impunity if they are not self-serving, don't involve third-party claims, etc. This would be an incorrect read of the rule (which is only for claims about the publication or its author), but we already know that the rule gets incorrectly read, including on that specific scope question.

The solution to all of this is simply to write more clearly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose "or its author" 101%. The addition of "or its author" is a fundamental change to the meaning and intention of the passage that is all bad. I don't believe ABOUTSELF was ever intended to include "about the author" but only ever meant that a source is reliable regarding the source itself (eg. a book is reliable for what the book contains). Authors have an obvious COI regarding themselves, yet this proposes that what they write about themselves is subject to even fewer restrictions than the writing of an independent expert. Please tell me I'm missing something. Zero^talk 06:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Zero, as someone who was around when ABOUTSELF was created, I can assure you that it was definitely intended to include self-published statements by authors about themselves. Blueboar (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Literally not one single other editor in this discussion has agreed with that viewpoint, and ABOUTSELF is routinely used for including self-sourced non-controversial statements of the author about the author ("I grew up in Brighton", "our company will stop providing support for this product on May 30, 2024", etc.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  SMcCandlish is 101% correct about this. If you (Zero0000) want to require third-party sourcing for statements of fact about the author then you're going to need to get explicit consensus to make that change. I predict such a proposal would be very quickly SNOW opposed, but you're welcome to see if my crystal ball is faulty. If other sources contradict the author and the matter is DUE (perhaps the most common is about a person's age) then we include the differing sources with an explicit note that they disagree, but ABOUTSELF is perfectly acceptable as source for the author's side of the story. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  Zero, I don't think you really mean what you wrote there about "even fewer restrictions than the writing of an independent expert". The main restrictions on the use of independent sources are:

  1. The good judgment of Wikipedia's editors.
  2. Don't say things that aren't in the source (NOR + WP:V).
  3. Don't say things that don't belong in the article (NPOV + NOT).

  The restrictions on ABOUTSELF include all of those plus five additional restrictions:

  1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

  For example: "Big Business, Inc. issued a press release announcing the hire of their new CEO, Bob Business." Or "Paul Politician said that he is sponsoring the law." Or "Chris Celebrity confirmed on social media that they were starring in The Next Big Film." We use self-published sources in hundreds of thousands of articles, and they are often used to say something about the person who wrote and published it, not just about the document itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Personally, I wouldn't be happy with your Chris Celebrity source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I might have my doubts about that one as well; I'm not sure how often we would actually accept such a "self-announcement" of a film/TV role. What we do accept are ABOUTSELF sources on such a matter from the production (the film's official website, an announcement made by the director at a convention, a press release from the studio, etc.). This also points out that point no. 2 ("it does not involve claims about third parties") is not always strictly applicable. And we've long known that; e.g. the "Big Business" and "Bob Business" example are overwhelmingly common, even though technically it's "Big Business" making a claim about a third party, "Bob". The fact that "Bob" (like "Chris" in a scenario in which it was the studio that announced their role in The Next Big Film) is surely aware of and agreeing with the announcement is not accounted for by the wording of no. 2 as any kind of possibility, so it doesn't reflect actual practice. But as with two other issues raised about ABOUTSELF's intent, this is a substantive matter to take up in a separate thread after the merge-and-copyedit is done).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  When Bob has been hired by Big Business, they are treated as one entity. They're not independent of each other. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  When the context is unclear whether they are speaking for/on behalf of their organisation people almost always make it explicit (in practice this is almost always in the negative). If for some reason it is still ambiguous, then either use a different source, omit the information or word the attribution carefully (e.g. "Bob Smith, a production manager at the firm, stated...").

  In the case of "Chris" from the example above, don't rush to include it the minute he says it. If he's wrong then the studio will put out an official statement/tweet/whatever saying so (or no commenting) within a few hours - and the chances are that if they do there will be third party coverage of the competing statements very quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  The example above is a press release from Big Business, Inc. Press releases are always self-published, but when the company is talking about its own employees, we do not treat the business as a third-party self-publishing information about a living person. We treat the business as self-publishing information about itself (i.e., as an entity that includes Bob, and therefore is basically self-published by Bob, too).

  In the case of "Chris", there might be a question about whether it's reliable (perhaps Chris has a track record for pranking his social media followers?), but there can be no question about whether ABOUTSELF applies: It's written by Chris, published by Chris, and about Chris. It's therefore ABOUTSELF material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)