Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

citing wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There was a recent discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Kirkuk%E2%80%93Haifa_oil_pipeline_and_WP:CIRCULAR) which concluded with the assertion that there are no exceptions to the rule that wikipedia cannot be used in a citation.

it makes no sense. The rule's purpose is merely a convention aimed at improving correctness. It has no substance, since a wikipedia article can be as reliable as the references it contains.

It does not prevent WP:Circular, since something can be wrong on wikipedia for a number of reasons and be picked up by someone else and restated somewhere else, creating a seemingly new source for the claim.

A reference pointing to wikipedia would potentially allow a mistake to be corrected in two places at the same time. A person so inclined could also search for all pages that make claims supported by a particular page through a reference and propagate a correction, if such citations were frequent, which i don't claim they have to be, only to illustrate that there is no clear cut disadvantage.

There is a rule saying that content without a reference MAY be removed. If i want to use an alternative method to provide a reference and thus do more, it suddenly MUST NOT be allowed?

The rule relies on one sentence within the body of WP:Circular, perhaps it would be a good idea to think it through some more or be more specific to make it clear that there can be no exceptions. To me this is a recommendation as it is stated currently. Was the sentence originally written as a recommendation or as a rule?

"Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly" 2A02:2455:8423:4800:7D52:62DE:8D0E:7BB6 (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I glanced at the RSN discussion. I have not figured out why you were insisting that it was better to cite https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bahrain_Petroleum_Company&oldid=1274785393 than to cite https://web.archive.org/web/20241103171151/https://www.bapco.net/en/page/history/ (i.e., the source cited in the Wikipedia article that you want to cite).

I have definitely not figured out why you thought it was worth a dozen people and three thousand words to argue about it. You could have copied and pasted the source from Bahrain Petroleum Company into Kirkuk–Haifa oil pipeline and been done with the whole thing in less than two minutes.

It is not technically true that "there are no exceptions to the rule that wikipedia cannot be used in a citation"; WP:CIRCULAR has a paragraph at the end about the sole permissible exception. That exception is not relevant, and you may not cite any part or any revision id of Bahrain Petroleum Company as a source in Kirkuk–Haifa oil pipeline.

If you are having difficulty accepting that the rest of the community rejects your preference, then please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Failure or refusal to "get the point". As a purely statistical description of past experiences, people who have persisted in such discussions past this point often end up blocked with that section cited as the explanation. You may wish to take that fact into account when you make decisions about what to do next. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I really don't enjoy being a pest, so i want you to be comfortable and not in any way compelled to engage. But i have to ask: How could you find and read the content of

https://web.archive.org/web/20241103171151/https://www.bapco.net/en/page/history/

if wikipedia is not a reliable source. You may not see my problem, but you are able to do the necessary steps to illustrate it. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:7D52:62DE:8D0E:7BB6 (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I have been told to come here on the noticeboard.

I fully understand the reasoning of the current rule and i am aware that i can solve this problem in the way you stated. You should be aware that i want to solve it in a different way.

This discussion is about how the current reasoning is wrong. It is not about my failure to understand it. If nobody shares my opinion, this can be a very short discussion.

I consider it an unnecessary restriction and as such i can ask for reasons why it exists. Several reasons were given on the noticeboard, but they are illogical.

2A02:2455:8423:4800:7D52:62DE:8D0E:7BB6 (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

If you want to cite Wikipedia articles as sources, then I strongly doubt that you "fully understand the reasoning of the current rule". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:

I understand it as far as anyone understands it after a first read and I already challenge the reasoning on that level of understanding.

Suppose somebody hosts a couple of PDF documents that are reliable sources by wiki standards. That somebody also adds a tutorial to the page that summarizes those sources. The summary is a SPS. If a wiki-editor references the page, are they linking to a SPS or a reliable source?

I fully understand though what is going on here. Hypocritical content moderators make themselves justified by showing up in large numbers.

Plausible "blog posts" are legal to add in wikipedia, even if they are not good sources. It's a way to make progress (in either direction). And somehow I cannot ("never") be allowed to cite good sources if i also include a link to an SPS summary of those sources. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 07:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

That is NOT what WP:BLOGS says. Blog posts may be used if the author is an established subject matter expert in the topic they are posting about, but the policy goes on to say, Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. If the blog post is not a very good source, it should not be used, even if the author is an expert in the topic area. Donald Albury 14:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

It was communicated to me that i cannot link to wikipedia inside of a reference. I was not told that i should use caution when linking to wikipedia inside a reference.

So which is it? 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

The point is you cannot cite Wikipedia as the source that verifies your claims. There is no need to split hairs about the mechanics of linking beyond that. Remsense ‥ 论 15:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You cannot use a WP article as a reference. You do not need to rely on what was communicated to you. Rely on explicit policy, WP:CIRCULAR: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources ..." (emphasis added).

The question you pose in your hypothetical, "If a wiki-editor references the page, are they linking to a SPS or a reliable source?" suggests a fundamental misunderstanding. A source may be any of the following: both SPS and RS, SPS but not RS, RS but not SPS, or neither SPS nor RS. It's simply mistaken to suggest that SPS and RS are mutually exclusive. Whether the SPS content in your hypothetical can be used as source depends on whether it was "produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" and is a good source for the WP content sourced to it.

If you want to use one or both of the two reliable articles as a source (where they're hosted as PDFs on that webpage), you have to cite the actual articles directly. Citing the webpage would be wrong, because the webpage is not itself the source. (If you think that's it's a source when it's only a host, then you're confused about the difference between sources and hosts.) If you want to link to the webpage because it's hosting full copies of the RSs, and they're not otherwise available online, WP RSs are not limited to sources that are available online. It might still be allowable to link to the webpage, but you still can't cite the webpage, because it's only a host. If you're suggesting that that's analogous to linking to a WP article, no, it isn't. With rare exceptions, WP does not host sources. It cites them. Citing is not hosting. If you want to refer to a source that's cited in another WP article, cite it directly, do not use the article as a substitute for the actual citation.

Re: your question "How could you find and read the content of [reliable source X] if wikipedia is not a reliable source," this is again a fundamental misunderstanding. That an editor cites a reliable source does not make WP article itself a reliable source. This goes back to your hypothetical: you can only cite SPS content if it satisfies EXPERTSPS and is a good source for the content you want to source to that SPS. But WP articles are written collectively, and it is impossible to determine whether the authors satisfy EXPERTSPS, nor is there any stability to the WP article, which can continue to be edited by others. That people can find reliable sources by following the citations in a WP article does not make the article itself reliable. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

My approach is entirely practical. Maybe it helps to look at it first in terms of how it is:

The lead section of an article does not have to provide references for the claims, because these claims are proven in the article body. At that point its pointless to argue about SPS vs RS or host vs source. Claims are written down and they can be verified by following a simple procedure: read the article and click on the sources.

Now i want to write a few sentences summarizing Bahrain Petroleum Company in the article about the Kirkuk-Haifa oil pipeline. For the same reasons that apply to a lead section, i should not have to prove any of it, because the proof is "below" and can easily be obtained. Inside my <ref> tag i link to the Bahrein article to indicate this and i also link to an oldid permalink of the article as a safeguard in case the references inside it get lost.

PS: the only expertise needed to extract information from a source is rote copying. I guess I just don't see the problem of a SPS being written by an ordinary wikipedia editor not being reliable. If you don't think so or it is very important, you can check the references and totally disregard the SPS summary of them.

PPS: the proposal i am making currently looks like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkuk%E2%80%93Haifa_oil_pipeline&oldid=1281204539#cite_ref-37

the references are copied over. That satisfies people who prefer it that way and who want to see some assurance at first glance that the ref was not added by a complete idiot and that the article will in fact prove satisfactorily what is claimed. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not itself ever a source that can verify claims, so you are putting a needless barrier between claims and verification for no good reason. This is "practical" in a very narrow sense, because it is certainly not that for the readers that citations are actually for. Just cite your sources inline like everyone else please; there is no justification to prefer a method that makes verification harder, full stop. Remsense ‥ 论 18:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

They aren't trying to use WP article text as a source. They trying to use references from article 1 in article 2, but using an idiosyncratic markup that includes a link to article 1. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

First of all, your descriptions up to this point have been quite ineffective in communicating what you're actually trying to discuss, which (if I understand correctly based on your link) is not about using a WP article as a reference, but is solely about using references from one WP article as citations in another article. Except that instead of copying the references in the normal way, you have an idiosyncratic way that you prefer.

"My approach is entirely practical." You're essentially arguing that it takes less time to create a diff and type one thing than it would take to simply click "edit source" in the Bahrain article and highlight/copy the corresponding reference. I don't see the time or energy savings that you allege.

"the only expertise needed to extract information from a source is rote copying" is false. The most significant information extracted from a source is the information used in writing the WP text that is sourced to that source, and writing that WP text does not involve rote copying (if it did, it could constitute a copyright violation). Determining whether to add content to a WP article (and if so, what the text should be and whether your source actually supports that) involves things like figuring out whether the WP text is DUE, whether the source is reliable, how to accurately summarize, whether the tone of the text is encyclopedic. When you reuse a reference, you're actually supposed to check that the reference does indeed support the WP text that you're asserting it supports. In this way, it is unlike writing a lead, which doesn't itself involve reusing a reference. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is not literally rote copying. But it also does not require you to be an established expert in the field to write the summary. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that WP editors summarize things all the time. As best I can tell, the sole thing you're actually arguing for is being able to cite sources in your idiosyncratic way (where the citation still shows up in full, but notes the article that first highlighted the source) instead of simply copying/pasting the markup for the citation. I don't see any time savings. And the thing this makes me wonder is: are you actually checking that the source is an RS for the text that you add to article 2, or are you simply assuming that when you summarize text from article 1, you can source your summary to the same citation, but without ever reading that source yourself? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Depends. Primarily its to reference something i have written before, but it can also be done to something where you found an existing paragraph written by someone else and verified.

But it could also be used for cases where you don't want to verify and instead delegate. You know where alternatively now you would just add content without any citation, only a wikilink. So for example: "China has dominated the steel industry for many years".

or: "China has produced 1,005,100,000 tons of steel in 2024"

Do I really need to verify the number when i know that anyone who wants to be certain about it wouldn't trust my version anyway, even if i did verify it. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

You shouldn't be adding a citation to any text if you haven't yourself confirmed that the source actually verifies the text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Nah that is just my opinion, i have no intention of trying to convince anyone of the latter part of what i said. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT/WP:DROPTHESTICK/WP:CIR. Separate articles are separate articles. Also, no one said "use caution when linking to wikipedia inside a reference". IP is pushing their POV and not actually reading what others here or policy documents even say. – notwally (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah. To reiterate: if you're looking for permission for your preferred methods that needlessly make verification more difficult, you're not likely to get it from any of us, I'm afraid. Remsense ‥ 论 18:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly. The idea that citing diffs to old article versions is somehow easier or preferable to simply copying and pasting the actual citation to the source is nonsense. – notwally (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Not diffs. Old versions of articles. I don't want you to adopt this method yourself. The method is fairly easy to adopt to, because it does copy the actual citation, only with additional context. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  You need to step back and consider the perspective of a reader who has not read your explanations for all this. You are needlessly confusing them and making it harder to verify claims. For the final time before I give up, there is no justification for this. Remsense ‥ 论 21:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I guess different people have different styles of processing information.

  If i write in an unrelated article: "Cuba's manganese industry benefited from zero import duty at the beginning of the 1930s".

  I can provide a citation from a 1933 reliable source that says this, or i can provide this paragraph that puts the source into a context.

  The paragraph is more reliable, because the sources all support each other's validity. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. The answer is 'no'. The answer is going to stay 'no'. I don't mind talking about the reasons, but talking about it will not change the answer. There is a 0% chance of this rule changing during the present decade. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW, what the IP is trying to suggest is different from how I initially interpreted it. I don't know if anyone else misunderstood in the same way as I did. They're not trying to use article content as a reference. They're only trying to use references from article 1 as references in article 2, but adding them in an idiosyncratic way that also identifies the page and reference # where they first appeared. The full reference still shows up in article 2. I tried contrasting the IP's preferred markup with the normal markup, but it resulted in half my comment disappearing (presumably because I've introduced markup that doesn't actually work / has a different effect than intended). The removed text in this diff illustrates the contrast. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Either way is equally as bad, the content of the other article (including it's references) are changeable. You can't use them like this as what you are linking to may have no relation to what it once was. The use of old diff is equally objectionable, if content was changed there may have been a very good reason for doing so. Cementing you version is ownership at best.
  I'm not going to comment further, as I've spent to much time on this nonsense already. But take this as my permanent objection to this idea in case of any future points. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  FOO, I don't think you misunderstood. The IP wants to cite a Wikipedia article. Saying "but I'm really citing the sources cited in the Wikipedia article" doesn't change the fact that they're citing the Wikipedia article.

  If they want to cite the sources from another Wikipedia article, then they can actually copy and paste the citations to those sources, and leave out the Wikipedia article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Nah, I just want to know where a source has previously been summarized so i know how to interpret it. I would also prefer to improve correctness if i know that it will be beneficial to more than one location in the wiki. Or see if there are dependencies after going through an article, while i still know a lot about an article i was working on. That would be good things.

  I would be ok if more people did it and i was not allowed to. That would be fine too. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  No, I did misunderstand. I thought that they wanted to use the text of the article as a source, but now I understand that that's not what they're proposing. I do understand that they can copy and paste the citations. The way they're proposing, the citations still appear in the target article, but the markup is different, and the appearance in the reference list is a bit different, as it also identifies the article where the editor first found the citations. If I understand their argument, they're saying that this provides additional context for the citations, though I agree with you that a better way to do that is by linking to (a section of) the initial article in the current article's text. One technical question that I now wonder about is whether these citations could then be reused in the target article in the normal way; I suspect not.

  It does have me thinking a bit about the inconsistency between the policy of not using WP as a source while allowing editors to copy text verbatim from one article to another as long as a they note it in their edit summary and add a Copied template to the Talk page. When I've copied large amounts of text from one article to another (e.g., when an article is split or editors decide that content should be parceled out differently between two new related articles like March 2025 Venezuelan deportations and J.G.G. v. Trump), I haven't attempted to verify all of the content that's getting copied. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  There is no inconsistency because you should be copying over all the sources. If someone is copying large amounts of text with no sourcing, then they are creating more problems. This whole conversation is pointless. Any additional context needs to be in each article itself. Links to other articles don't work because articles change and old diffs to prior versions would eliminate the ability of anyone in the future to change that supposed "context". – notwally (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  A link to an old version can be changed. Just change the link. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:7F86:AD19:940F:E49E (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  The proposal is of course not actually cementing ownership. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:7F86:AD19:940F:E49E (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  The proposal is already compatible with WP:Circular. I am copying the citations. And adding context to them. The policy does not say that i am not allowed to make my citations prettier. I can only repeat that pointing to an existing summary of the sources will be useful to some people for various reasons. (1) save time if they only need plausibility or are able to judge the summary for some other reason (2) to make sure that they didn't miss anything that somebody else found worth extracting or that their own understanding is supported by someone else's understanding etc. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:32DA:3EE0:8B3D:1410 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  Readers almost never read the sources (one ref for every ~300 page views; for an article like Freeport-McMoRan, which has higher than average traffic levels, that means that just two of its 109 refs were probably clicked on each month during the last year). Sources exist for that occasional reader, but they primarily exist to benefit editors.

  If you think people should read a different Wikipedia article, then it should be linked in plain text. Those links are more likely to get clicked on/read than the refs anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I do not care about visitor traffic patterns.

  I care about that anyone (any editor) that verifies could be redirected to verify in another article. Not a big deal, anyone can do that. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:7F86:AD19:940F:E49E (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  The policy requires that all material be verifiable in a reliable source. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. (Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources by definition, no matter how many sources they have or how good you believe them to be.) Ergo, citing a Wikipedia article does not actually meet the requirements of this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  I am supposed to work with definitions that contradict common sense?

  How about instead of a reference i use a footnote to convey the information. A footnote is by definition not a reference. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:602D:A68E:73FC:7E01 (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  In terms of an explanatory footnote: Do you have something like "For more information, read this section of this other Wikipedia article"?

  That kind of footnote is neither banned nor encouraged. More importantly, it is not a substitute for putting refs in the current article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  I don't like the idea of using a footnote.

  I would prefer we reach a consensus that allows me to go ahead.

  WP:Circular: "Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources."

  since i am citing an article backed by reliable sources i am good to go.

  "Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly"

  i am doing that.

  "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources"

  i am using the link to the article to inform the reader where i obtained the sources and for various other reasons that i believe beneficial. Nobody is forced to rely or even look at the cited article to go ahead.

  Is this something we can all agree on? 2A02:2455:8423:4800:602D:A68E:73FC:7E01 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  You are not "using them directly". "Using them directly" means copying and pasting the refs into the second article. "Using them indirectly" would include providing a link to the first Wikipedia article, aka what you're proposing. AFAICT nobody except you supports your proposal. I definitely oppose it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  I am using them directly. See:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kirkuk%E2%80%93Haifa_oil_pipeline&oldid=1281204539#cite_ref-37 2A02:2455:8423:4800:602D:A68E:73FC:7E01 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

  Putting "Bahrain Petroleum Company (rev 1277986768, 2025-02-27)" into the ref is not using the sources directly. Putting ""Bahrein Field's Remarkable Characteristics". World Petroleum. Vol. 9, no. 7. July 1938. p. 66." into the ref is using the sources directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ONUS and WP:STATUSQUO

WP:ONUS seems to conflict with WP:STATUSQUO. Per WP:BRD, when an editor makes a bold change, any editor may dispute that change by reverting it. Then a dispute discussion takes place on the article talk page. Per WP:STATUSQUO, the article should remain at the status quo ante while this discussion is ongoing until a clear consensus emerges. Some editors use ONUS to subvert the common sense application of STATUSQUO - that the article should maintain the original state that is being discussed. I think we need to add some qualifications to ONUS about this, as the two seem to be in direct conflict. Skyerise (talk) 14:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Just a heads up that this has been discussed before, most recently last fall. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

The exceptions listed at WP:STATUSQUO are crucial, and saying " the article should remain at the status quo ante while this discussion is ongoing..." and leaving the exceptions to be discovered by those readers who follow the link is problematic. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

A LOT depends on the reason why ONUS vs STATUSQUO is being invoked. If the issue is that the “status quo” version violates a core policy, then we should not maintain the “status quo” during discussion… if, on the other hand, the issue is more subjective (say a question of whether some factoid is relevant), then we should. There is no “one size fits all” way to approach this, and instead of wikilawyering “the rules”, focus on the discussion and reaching compromises. Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Right, I agree. But the section that WP:ONUS is in specifies that we are talking about verifiable material in that section: "not all verifiable information must be included." So it is being used in cases where there are perfectly valid citations and there is no argument that the material is verifiable; the argument is usually that the material might be WP:UNDUE, which is a guideline issue, not a policy violation, which should be settled by discussion. Skyerise (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Just removed an added line about this, as it didn't seem to clarify the situation. First, can we just use plain language in policies please? Second, what is the situation you're trying to avoid? Is the idea that X content has been in Y article for a year, and someone comes along and removes it, then cites ONUS when someone restores it? Doesn't our page on consensus and implicit consensus more or less cover that? (i.e. there is consensus for it, so it's included, and should remain there as discussion determines the strength of that consensus)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the issue. Material which is properly cited and has been in the article for some time is removed. Another editor restores it citing WP:STATUSQUO, but the editor again removes the material, claiming that WP:ONUS overrides STATUSQUO, and refuses to engage in discussion on the talk page. Clearly, if the material is not cited, WP:BURDEN applies, but I don't think ONUS should be used to justify repeated removals by an editor refusing to discuss on the talk page. I've run into this kind of situation several times involving several different editors who think ONUS simply gives them the right to remove anything they don't like and then can be used to stonewall discussion. Skyerise (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Two things:

• QUO's purpose is to stop edit warring. It is a section in the Wikipedia:Reverting essay. If the edit warring stops by "violating" the QUO essay and having m:The Wrong Version on the page during discussions, then that's fine. (Once the discussion is over, QUO is inapplicable.)
• You've been around long enough to know that Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays is mushy and that the true policy is the community's actual practice rather than its written documentation, but you're objecting to someone applying a policy (ONUS), and advocating instead that two essays (QUO and BRD) should trump the policy. This is not necessarily the strongest position to be arguing in an ANI report about edit warring.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

ONUS may be in a policy page, but the policy is actually WP:V - verifiability. I don't read ONUS as a policy violation if the material is properly cited and I'm not sure why it's in this policy page when it should be in WP:UNDUE. Therefore I propose moving the single sentence and the ONUS link to that page, since WP:V adequately covers unsourced material and ONUS isn't really about verifiability, it is about whether a verifiably cited inclusion is DUE or UNDUE. Skyerise (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

I think a lot of these discussions depend on the actual specific cases. The idea expressed by Skyerise that "I don't think ONUS should be used to justify repeated removals by an editor refusing to discuss on the talk page" also applies in the other direction. What if an editor repeatedly restores material while refusing to discuss on the talk page? In both cases, I would argue that if there is no discussion by one editor, then the consensus is based on the discussion by the other editor who did use the talk page. When push comes to shove, though, I think ONUS is the more important policy. From my perspective, if we have problematic information in an article, it is better to remove it and wait for consensus to include rather than leave problematic content in our mainspace while we discuss it. Wikipedia does not have deadlines and there is no harm in removing information while we discuss it, while leaving potentially problematic content in mainspace while we discuss is far more likely to be harmful. – notwally (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Well, I can see it's been discussed before and I'm probably not saying anything new. But it does seem more like part of UNDUE than V to me. Skyerise (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There are several areas of overlap between WP:DUE and WP:V already, and I don't see how it could be harmful to add something in WP:DUE about this. Fringe theories are discussed fairly extensively in both. I do understand the current sentence's placement in WP:V though as that is where there is more discussion about how consensus works (and note C also discusses the issues involving WP:ONUS), and so I don't think it would make sense to remove it from there. – notwally (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Skyerise, the reason ONUS is in this page is because it has something to say about verifiability. Specifically, it's message is that being "properly cited" is not enough. Verifiability is necessary, but it's not sufficient, or in the words of the section heading, ===Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion===. Properly cited material can be removed despite being properly cited.

The problem with moving it to DUE is that DUE is not the only reason why properly cited material could/should/must be removed. Properly cited material is removed for many reasons, including (but not limited to):

• POV pushing
• copyright violations
• unencyclopedic content
• being redundant
• being badly written
• being off-topic for the specific article

Moving it to WP:DUE would imply that DUE is the only reason for removing cited material. In reality, cited text can be removed for DUE reasons, but also for COPYVIO, WP:NOT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:MOS, and many other reasons. IMO we shouldn't move ONUS to all of the places where it is relevant. If we're going to have it, it should either be here (message: verifiability isn't enough; you have to have consensus to include the verifiable material), in Wikipedia:Consensus (message: material without consensus can be removed, even if it's cited), or in the Wikipedia:Editing policy (message: everything an editor adds is subject to consensus). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Whether the content stays in or not is a million times less important than finding consensus. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

^ This. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we can split the baby in this endless debate… what if we change ONUS to say something like:

• “When material is disputed for reasons other than Verifiability, the responsibility to determine consensus rests equally on those wishing to include the material and those wishing to exclude it. Discuss - Don’t engage in a revert war. Whether to leave the disputed material in the article while discussion takes place depends on why the material is disputed. (For example: a potential WP:BLP violation should be removed during discussion, while a potential WP:TRIVIA violation can remain.)”

just a thought. Blueboar (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

This change would increase the frequency of edit wars in contentious articles and cause deterioration of article quality. People will add dubious content then demand it remains until a consensus is determined. The current wording is based on the core principle that everything in an article should have consensus to be there and I don't think that principle should be weakened. Zero^talk 04:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The problem is, people are already adding disputed material and then demanding that it remain in the article (per STATUS QUO) during discussion. And, sometimes, that is the right thing to do. However, at other times (such as a BLP bio) that is the wrong thing to do. It isn’t an always/never issue. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

We're moderately good at "WP:BLP = removal". I wonder what the effect would be of "WP:CTOP = removal". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

My own (personal) rule of thumb on CTOP disputes tends to be - first, try rewriting (to see if editors can find compromise wording through BOLD editing). This often won’t work, but it can help to clarify and define what the dispute actually is about.

Then (if rewriting doesn’t work) - it is probably better to omit the material while the dispute is being discussed… the material can always be put back if there is consensus for it. Blueboar (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

The example above is about a link in an infobox, which doesn't leave a lot of space for compromise over the wording.

WP:QUO says BLPs, External links, Copyright violations, and Libel are "Always remove" (until consensus for inclusion is formed). I wonder if it would be helpful to include CTOP content. It might help, but it might make things worse, in a WP:STONEWALLING way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I think as described here it's too easy of a tool to stonewall with. Perhaps there could be carveouts for common CTOPs pitfalls in a similar spirit to the crime BLP advice such as qualification of events as "massacres", etc. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I am of mixed feelings on the idea of handling CTOP the way we do BLP. But… WP:V isn’t where we should say it. VNOT says all we need to say (ie V doesn’t guarantee inclusion because other p&g apply). CTOP may be one of the many p&gs that would cause removal, but there is no need to specify that here.

This is why the ONUS sentence is problematic. It doesn’t really belong in here in WP:V.

It’s fine for WP:V to note in passing that consensus is one of the many p&gs that might cause verifiable material to be removed… but instruction on who has to achieve consensus goes beyond that simple statement. The ONUS sentence has nothing to do with Verifiability. It needs to be moved elsewhere. Blueboar (talk) 20:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes it has to do with V. V like everything else must be agreed upon. That's the point, our text is not my text, it is not your text, it is for the world, our text, and we have to agree that it complies with "non negotiable" policy. And what is the primary indeed only actual evidence of our consensus: it is in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it's possible for "V to be agreed upon" and additionally agree to exclude the material.

Editors can have a consensus that Source 1 is reliable for supporting Claim A. That's what agreeing upon verifiability would mean.

But that doesn't mean that Claim A belongs in Wikipedia, or at least in the given article. ONUS is about getting already cited, verifiable material out of an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Not just getting out, also proper text to sources congruence, and excluding to begin with (to short circuit to the end, either it belongs at finish in that way, or not) and the agreements needed to get to the finish are multiple across nonnegotiable policies including V -- the finish is what is in the article, that's the end, so the consensuses of what's in must come before the end. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:Onus needs to be modified to serve it's original intent. Instead of something that is written in such a ham-handed way that it often conflicts with other policies, and has nothing to do with the Verifiability policy where it is located. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

My sense is that adding CTOPs as an exception to QUO would result - for the articles that are most at risk of edit warring - in a sudden erasure of content, because there is very little about which the most strongly opinionated editors holding differing perspectives can agree (consensus is hard, slow to reach and easy to challenge or distort in these areas). I imagine that COVID-19 lab leak theory, for example, would be nearly devoid of content almost immediately. While I sense the possibility of saving editor time through such a policy change, I can't imagine this would enhance the quality of the encyclopaedia. Newimpartial (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That would, in many cases, be an excellent result. Many of our articles on these topics are waaaaaaaay too long, padded out with endless he-said-she-said and attempts to have the last word. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Too long is better than too short, all in all thats a real first world problem. I also think a major contributor to article length in CTOP areas is a reluctance to break off daughter pages out of an understandable desire to avoid giving bad faith parties opportunities to make coatracks or POV splits (as well as a good intentioned desire to counter WP:FRINGE arguments robustly and in full). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

What would you say was its original intent? Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Blueboar: The original intent was to say "just because it's verifiable doesn't mean it should automatically be in Wikipedia." That's why it's in the verifiability policy. There wasn't much discussion but that was the apparent intent of the edit summary by the person who added it and also of the folks that let that edit stick. My updated and tidied up way of saying that is "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion". North8000 (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

That was certainly the intent of the part currently marked as VNOT (I know, because I wrote and added the initial paragraph - see my edit on 11 Feb 2013).

However, The ONUS sentence was added on to it a year later (by user:JzG on 13 Aug 2014) - without any discussion that I can find. The edit summary implies that the intent was to prevent POV pushing.

Looking at the talk page for the time when the ONUS sentence was added, we were in a long debate about the wording of the “Questionable sources” section… so maybe it was inspired by that. Not sure. Blueboar (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• STATUSQUO is an essay. ONUS is a policy. STATUSQUO is good advice. Edit warring during a content dispute may likely result in an involuntary time out. ONUS has to do with the inclusion of content. If Dave wants material excluded and Doug wants material included, then we leave the bits out of the article until Doug finds consensus for inclusion. The burden is on Doug, and Doug should probably not edit war over it in the meantime. There is no rush and nobody is going to lose life or limb because Doug's favorite paragraph is absent from the article for a few days. GMG^talk 12:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  But we might have a problem if @Newimpartial is correct about whole swathes of CTOP articles getting blanked. I wonder what some of the FTN regulars would think of this. I'll go invite them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  I usually take "contested" meaning with some evidence of contention (i.e. in appropriate sources), and not just an editor showing up and saying "I contest that the Holocaust happened!" (or whatever). Bon courage (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  Birds Aren't Real. Fight me IRL. GMG^talk 18:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  At any rate, common sense is still a thing, and we're being a little silly if we think the community will tolerate wholesale blanking because somebody found a novel angle to wikilawyer. This all kindof presumes a good faith content dispute. GMG^talk 00:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  common sense is still a thing ← edit WP:FRINGE topics much? Even is common sense does initially if common sense does eventually prevail on Wikipedia, giving policy-based WP:PROFRINGE arguments to WP:PROFRINGE editors invites an awful lot of argumentative time-wasting, and that is very bad for the Project. Bon courage (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  edit WP:FRINGE topics much I tried, but now I'm topic banned from bird articles. GMG^talk 10:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  These discussions generally last longer than a few days, even if just from limited participation. For a lot of more recent topics this creates a pattern where someone adds something to the page, it gets reverted (maybe a few reverts back and forth but the upshot being it isn't on the page), a discussion starts, then another editor comes along and adds more or less the same thing because they just read the same article in Wired, Nature, or whatever that everyone else did and they didn't check the talk page for an ongoing discussion first because who does that? Then we get bogged down in another round of reverts and now have to discuss two versions of the same thing on the talk page... And it might happen four or five times... So there are benefits to leaving content on the page during a discussion as long as there aren't major BLP concerns or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

  In the situation you describe, ONUS, STATUSQUO, and BRD would all lead to the same outcome, which is the exclusion of the new content that has been contested until there is consensus to include. – notwally (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes and clearly the preferred outcome is that the content remains on the page during the discussion so we would appear to have an issue here... I would also note that in practice it gets included while the discussion is ongoing, especially as those discussions almost always end in consensus to include at least something. I've for example never seen someone avoid the consequences of a 3rr violation by claiming ONUS/STATUSQUO. I will also express a bit of bafflement at what WP:STATUSQUO is even doing in the room, thats a part of an essay not policy, guideline, or something which should be taken seriously... BRD as well, its an optional process so it doesn't matter if it isn't followed. Can you make this argument again but only from ONUS? For the record I can't, I can't twist ONUS into a universal "the exclusion of the new content that has been contested until there is consensus to include" no matter how hard I try. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that the preferred outcome is keeping the content on the page during the discussion. That appears to be the OP's preferred outcome in the case of Roberta Hoskie, but it's not everyone's preferred outcome for that dispute, and it's probably not even the preference OP's in other circumstances (i.e., when she wants to remove material that other editors want to keep in an article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  In some contexts its certainly preferred, that isn't contentious... otherwise we wouldn't need to have special rules for BLP. May I take your lack of attempt to mean that you can't twist ONUS into that either? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think the wording of ONUS is very clear. The only thing that is unclear is whether the community actually supports it in everyday practice. I feel like experienced editors use a double standard: when I want to remove your material, then I'll say ONUS is the rule, so the disputed material must be removed. But when you want to remove my material, then maybe I'll say QUO or BRD is the rule, so the disputed material must be kept in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  If its very clear then you should have very little trouble making the argument from it. QUO or BRD are never the rule, that at least is very clear and we can all agree on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  I believe that QUO and BRD are not required; after all, I'm the person who plastered the word "optional" all over BRD. But I find that other editors – of which we get about three-quarter million registered editors each year, and an unknown number of logged-out editors – are less clear on this point. Quite a few of them insist that people "must" follow BRD, even though BRD explicitly says that it's optional.

  The thing about Wikipedia's policies is that we do not revere the written word above actual practice. Putting "policy" at the top of a page does not make it an inviolable requirement. Putting "essay" at the top of another page doesn't mean that it's not actually a strictly enforced requirement. The True™ policy is what we do, not what we say. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Nothing in the flawed wording of onus says that it is limited to new content. When it serves their agenda, onus is also used by wikilawyers to win a battle to remove OLD content. Once taken out, they say that the person who wants to restore it has to overcome ONUS. North8000 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thats just true, the person who restores it or wants to restore it does have to overcome ONUS unless there is a standing consensus (not an implied consensus) to include it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

  Ok… but why is that the case? Blueboar (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Does this include deletion ( removal ) as well? Meaning an editor who removes content from Wikipedia and gets reverted. Whose responsibility is to get consensus ? Cinaroot (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the responsibility remains upon editors who wish to include the content to provide a justification for why the text should be present within the article. Of course, your general case doesn't indicate why the material was deleted. A deletion of text with no explanation is easily reverted, and indeed there are user warning templates for editors who delete text without explanation. DonIago (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Why the material was blanked is important. Was it uncited? If so, WP:BURDEN applies, and you need to treat it like a WP:CHALLENGE. Is it contentious matter about WP:BLP? Then don't restore it until you have written proof of consensus to do so, unless you think you'll be able to make a convincing case about it being a test edit or blatant vandalism. Is this a WP:CTOP subject? Better stick to WP:1RR at the most, and remember that if it heads to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, you want to have done no edit warring at all, or at least significantly less than the other editor. Is there some special circumstance, like a copyright violation? Be quick to discuss and slow to restore. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

This is the edit in question [1][2] they removed gaza genocide from the Infobox. They were reverted by another editor also. They are claiming, its my responsibility to get consensus to include it as per WP:ONUS. I think not. i explained it here User talk:Cinaroot#A false accusation of vandalism I just want to make sure, I’m right - in case I came across this situation in the future. I explained to them that since the text had existed for a long time, it was assumed to have consensus. Since they have been reverted twice, they need to discuss it per WP:BRD. @WhatamIdoing Cinaroot (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot, did you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle? Not Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD – the actual BRD optional essay itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

yes - i know its optional.but after reading WP:EPTALK WP:EDITCON WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS

i think editors who wish to make changes are responsible for seeking consensus when their edit is disputed, particularly if its verifiable content and content that adheres to Wikipedia policies or if existing consensus is being challenged. Cinaroot (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this, I notice:

• The removed information was uncited. You re-reverted it without adding a source. Therefore, your restoration is a violation of the WP:CHALLENGE policy.
• Your edit summary cited WP:ONUS to claim that the other editor has to start the discussion. The ONUS policy says that you have to do this, because you are the one who wants to include the content.

I wonder why you haven't just started a discussion. It's not that hard, right? You just click the button for a new section, and write something like "I think the infobox needs a link to the Gaza genocide article, but it keeps getting removed." You are capable of doing this. Please do it today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

An discussion is already in my talk page. So this is standard practice in all article Gaza war gaza genocide Gaza–Israel conflict etc... every article has Part of x and y in infobox. Meaning the article is related to ( part of ) x and y articles. No citation is necessary. The editor removed the content citing its violating NPOV. But its not. And im wrong about the edit summary of WP:ONUS But that content cannot be removed without a valid reason. There is existing consensus and the burden shouldn't be on me to include it. But ill be discussing it with anyone who disputes it. Cinaroot (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

If there is actually an existing consensus, then it should be very easy to demonstrate that. A quick note on the article's talk page that says "BTW, here's the link to the prior discussion" should be enough in such situations.

And, yes, it is on you to demonstrate consensus for the material you want to include. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

And i was really asking for future - not for this particular issue. Thanks anyway. Cinaroot (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is ultimately everyone's responsibility. If someone is saying "No way, dude, it's your job to start a discussion on the talk page; I just get to keep doing whatever I want in the article until you start a discussion", then something has already gone wrong. Consider what the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle says about such cases: The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

BTW, it's not unusual for someone to invoke the WP:QUO essay when reverting. It's my experience that a lot of editors haven't actually read it, and that doing so might solve some problems (or at least result in the reverter producing a relevant objection). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

...and if this is about the edit war at Hamas, then it might be solved by a trip to AE, perhaps with a suggestion that this less experienced editor might not be quite ready for the WP:EXCON user right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

but one could argue WP:QUO is not an actual policy of wikipedia as stated in the page. Cinaroot (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Does that matter? Indeed, should it ultimately matter who's "more responsible" for achieving consensus? If we assume that two or more editors are in disagreement about the best state of an article and that they all want what's best for the article, then it shouldn't matter who starts the conversation to try to resolve the dispute. My advice? If you're having trouble pushing through an edit that you believe would improve an article, and it's not a clear issue of disruption or such, then you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by initiating a discussion whether or not you "should" be the one to start it. If nothing else, you'll be showing your willingness to try to reach a consensus and perhaps setting an example for your fellow editors. DonIago (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

It all depends on context. The article's talk page would be the appropriate place to start the discussion. – notwally (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

On a technical level all other things being equal there is absolutely no difference between restoring content and being its original author. That content is now "yours" both as counted towards the particular question here and also as goes towards article authorship. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The burden is on whoever wants to state the genocide as a fact. Who deleted or added what when is a technicality. 2A02:2455:8423:4800:9E9B:730F:DF1B:8C15 (talk) 10:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:Citogenesis - there needs to be actual policy discussing damage control.

See this discussion. Wikipedia talk:List of citogenesis incidents only shows a list, not guidelines. WP:Circular only talks about preventative measures to avoid damage, not how to clean up a damage resulting from citogenesis (investigate, clearly explain the citogenesis situation to the reader like the list of incidents is doing). 172.56.234.162 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Yup, I argued at Talk:Rudolf Steiner that an article from a major newspaper is citogenesis, but nobody believed me, since there was no WP:RS to that extent. Morals: citogenesis is hard to prove, and WP:OR is not the way to do it. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

• Adding another policy or guideline won't prevent citogenesis incidents. Citogenesis incidents happen when a (normally reliable) external source trusts the contents of a Wikipedia article, especially when the Wikipedia article contains an error. We can't stop external sources from trusting us.
• Once you've identified an incident, the clean-up process is pretty straightforward (remove errors; add correct information; leave a note on the talk page). We don't need a fancy protocol. I'm not even sure that we actually need a list, except as an exercise in humility.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

No, I agree with the IP that when we're confident citogenesis has occurred, we should clearly say in the article where the citogenesis occurred that the claim is false and was originally sourced from Wikipedia. Just because we can't prevent citogenesis doesn't mean we can't do anything to reduce it. Loki (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

We can't add content to the article if there's no reliable source that WP:Directly supports that claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)