Scope of WP:ABOUTSELF

Does WP:ABOUTSELF apply to the use of self-published or questionable sources as proof of the claim that certain content was published by said source (if the fact of said publication itself is mentioned in a wikipedia article, for example if it leads to a change in public opinion) without claiming that the published content itself is reliable?

Asking because a user who is systematically removing Daily Mail references made this edit at Snow White (2025 film), removing the use of Daily Mail as a source for the claim that "Photos published by the Daily Mail in July 2023 led to speculation that the dwarfs had been reimagined as one actor with dwarfism and six non-dwarf actors of diverse backgrounds".

Secondary sources for this claim have also been given, but surely we shouldn't disallow readers from verifying of the existence of the original article, which contains said trouble-making photos.

The user went on to revert my revert because:

WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply here: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", "It does not involve claims about third parties"

However, the Daily Mail is not being used here as a source for a claim about third parties, but for a claim about the Daily Mail itself. That rule is surely about claims made on wikipedia, using the source, and not simply claims about third parties found anywhere in the source.Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

@Robby.is.on: Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It was never required in the first place as the next reference from AVClub verified that the images were initially shared by the Daily Mail, making it redundant. Regardless of policy always using the least controversial source is best practice, as it ensures editors don't waste time bickering over the topic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:39, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

As to ABOUTSELF the report is about leaked images from a Disney movie not a report about the Daily Mail. So it's not ABOUTSELF, instead it's a primary source for the leaked images. If this was ABOUTSELF then any source could be used as ABOUTSELF as long as it was attributed, I can't believe that was the intention when that section was written. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it would mean any source could be used if attributed, only that sources can be used as evidence of the fact that they published something if said published material is itself notable for some reason. Using deprecated sources for their reporting in general would still not be allowed. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

If what they published is notable due to secondary sources that makes the original report the primary source, but it's not ABOUTSELF. Primary sources are sometimes included when this happens but it's not required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:07, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Y'all obviously don't mean WP:Notable; may I suggest using words like "important enough to include in the article" instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Instead we should push editors to understand that unless presented in WORDSALAD a word is just a word. That we should expect that people are using the common meaning, even if it just so happens to match SOMETHING. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:48, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Communication with other editors is more robust and less likely to result in confusion when editors avoid using wikijargon words in their everyday meaning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, ActivelyDisinterested, for explaining why WP:ABOUTSELF does not apply here. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The bottom line is that any original publication is a reliable (primary) source for its own contents. Whether it's ABOUTSELF is irrelevant.

The key detail here, though, is that there are editors who dedicate themselves to what they'd call "protecting Wikipedia" from anything that has dailymail.co.uk in it, even if it's one of the rare instances in which that publication is okay. Part of this is maybe a bit more on the emotional side (I hate hate hate that source; therefore, I will remove it whenever possible) and a good deal of it is not remembering (or caring about) all the nuance in WP:DAILYMAIL (e.g., "in an about-self fashion" is not quite the same thing as WP:ABOUTSELF per se), but I think a lot of it is practical: It's just a lot easier for the self-appointed enforcers if this search for Daily Mail citations comes up nearly empty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Defining editors who try and ensure that reliable sources are used as self-appointed enforcers seems a little ABF. There are also two points from the original 2017 RFC (upheld at review and the subsequent RFC in 2019) to consider:
The Daily Mail is actually reliable for some subjects. This appears to have been adequately addressed by the support !voters: if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead.
and:
There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate.
Given this was never needed and could easier be replaced by other sources for the purposes of verification, replacing it seems quite inline with the close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Technically there are no better sources on what the Daily Mail published in an article than that very article, or an archived version of it. I would suggest that the RFC is not referring to use of the publication as a primary source.

The use-as-a-primary-source exception, if we accept it exists, should probably be made explicit either here or at WP:RSP to prevent future confusion. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, in principle the original is authoritative for its contents, but in the particular case of this publication, I think that some editors care more about the "other sources should be used instead" part and less about the "actually reliable for some bits", and nobody cares enough to stop them. Even though I believe they are reliable for some statements, I don't think I've ever reverted a removal, and I don't imagine that I would do so unless it would otherwise leave the material uncited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Defining editors...as self-appointed enforcers is sometimes both accurate and warranted, but you may notice that I described them as "dedicated" instead.

There are no longer "multiple thousands of existing citations" to WP:DAILYMAIL. There might be "multiple dozens". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Or a basely aspersion based on your own opinion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:45, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

No need to escalate a month later. The advice to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate doesn't read like carte blanche to take them all out one by one, even if they are serving a purpose that cannot be (or is not) simply replaced. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I only noticed it due the new post below. It's not an escalation. As to the rest from the original RFCon the Dailymail, upheld several times, "As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." and "if there are topics where it might be a reliable source, then better sources (without its disadvantages) should also exist and can be used instead". If you can find a better source, use that instead, and if you can't there's a reason for that and don't use the DM. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:17, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Daily Fail is well known for publishing distortions and outright lies in order to push their side of the culture war. If something is not covered by other reliable sources then we don't need to say it. TarnishedPath^talk 04:59, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think you've understood the issue here. The reliability of Daily Mail is not relevant. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it's okay to cite. I read the WP:DAILYMAIL1 words "generally unreliable" and go with dictionary definitions for "generally": "usually, or in most situations" (Cambridge definition 2), "in most cases" (Oxford Learner's definition 2). However, we'd need consensus to put a cite back, and generally don't achieve it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

(Update) Robby.is.on has removed a cite of Bild in Wikipedia's Daily Mail article. I believe that too is okay to cite, and have said so on the Daily Mail talk page, thread Bild. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how that relates to ABOUTSELF, it's Bild discussing a third party. I've replied at the tread you've started, the build reference doesn't appear necessarily at all. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:44, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

"It's okay to cite." ... For me that's not due to the mention of ABOUTSELF by the OP, but due to the policy that this talk page is for, WP:V. It's verifiable and an essay-class page that says "generally unreliable" is what doesn't "relate" to cases like this. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Mass epidemic hypocrisy and confusion on Verifiability/NOR deletions. Needs new policy.

Wikipedia needs a new clear policy, and we already know exactly what it should be. (Skip to my last paragraph if you don't care about the extra discussion.)

Let's start with an interesting fact that might seem like a problem but which is actually AOK: pretty much not a single "Plot" or "Synopsis" section about a book or movie, across hundreds of thousands of wikipedia articles about books or movies, has cited sources. That is fine, although it violates the Sources/Verifiability rules, or at least it violates the verifiability rule *as imagined in the minds of mass-deleters* who think they understand the rules, or at least it violates the rules as (poorly) described on the Verifiability page. It's fine because it clearly fits the No Original Research page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, because there's every reason to believe a source exists and could be cited, regardless of whether a source is currently cited.

But, we have numerous misguided wiki editors going around deleting (acceptable, good, rule-abiding) contributions supposedly for the reason of "no citation", while never noticing or deleting the unsourced uncited Plot Synopses. Good contributions that rest on the same undisputed logic as uncited Plot Summaries are getting deleted.

Example. Let's say a famous movie comes out in 2019 called "Herman Melville's Moby Dick", yet the movie has bizarre interesting things that are *completely different* from the book. Let's say that anybody reading the plot would surely want some kind of cue that the depicted thing is totally different from the book, like one part where a ghost attacks the ship (which does not happen in the book), while many other things are direct from the book. Let's say that there's a detailed highly-informative Plot Synopsis of the movie without any cited sources, as is ALWAYS the case for every synopsis. Now let's say someone writes a brief section that clearly lists the notable (but otherwise subtle IF a person wasn't aware) plot differences, using nothing but the accurate plot synopsis of the movie and the accurate plot synopsis of the movie, which is sourceable to "sourced" to the items themselves, regardless of whether that's currently cited or not. And we know that there are thousands (millions?) of book and movie scholars in the world who study books and movies and adaptations and criticism, and who often do things like point out bizarre interesting departures within seeming-adaptions of art works, especially for extremely famous classic works and national epics. That's the scenario. Now, should the 'Differences between the movie and the book' section be deleted by an editor who fails to delete the synopsis, when neither the differences nor the synopsis is cited? (The real-life situation I'm talking about related to the wiki page for the movie The Green Knight from 2021.)

The No Original Research page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research has some useless descriptions of what "some editors object to" rather than a meaningful policy: "When tagging or removing such material, please communicate your reasons why. Some editors object to others making frequent and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. [...] For [..] reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified."

That last part should be POLICY, not suggestion. It should be required that a deleter of unsourced info has reason to believe the deleted text cannot be verified (or violates some other principles). Without a rule like that, people can freely censor info that they don't like simply because it doesn't currently have a citation, and furthermore they think they're following the 3 principles (V) when they're clearly violating them by ignoring that something can be sourced even if a source isn't currently cited. RandomEditor6772314 (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Plots and synopsis of creative works are assumed to use the work themselves as the sources, so that means the plot summary must stick to clear and obvious details and also why they are to be concise. The OR comes in making interpretations from that work without the aid of reliable sources. If a new work based on Moby Dixk came out but with significant differences it is absolutely OR to discuss those differences absent a source. Masem (t) 21:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

What Massem said… a basic plot summary is always verifiable by looking at the primary source (the book, film, etc, itself) - the fact that this primary source isn’t always cited is irrelevant to its verifiability (and it can easily BE cited if someone demands we do so).

A plot analysis, on the other hand, requires an external secondary source. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It sounds to me like the problem is more like this:

• I write a basic plot summary: "Jane is grateful for her job as a governess, but then she falls in love with her employer, who turns out to have an insane wife locked in the attic. Later, Jane unexpectedly inherits some money, and the first wife dies in a house fire." This is not cited, and this is acceptable under policy.
• I compare the book against the movie (e.g., all the bits they left out because movies are shorter than books). This should be cited, because the act of comparison is more complex than what's permitted under the rules for using WP:PRIMARY sources.

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

If it is clear from the edit history that a book-film comparison was originally written as OR by directly comparing the two primary sources, I would say there is very little obligation on a removing editor to go hunting for reliable sources on which that content could be hung. If something was written without prior recourse to reliable sources, that is a good reason to believe it will not accurately, objectively, and with due weight summarize what those reliable sources say, other than for the most obvious and widely known facts.--Trystan (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I object to the premise that when a Wikipedia article about a book contains a book summary, the absence of a citation to the book is being excused or forgiven. The Verifiability policy does not require a citation to be in any particular format. If the article about a book reveals the basic information about the book, such as the title, author, and publisher, then the book IS cited.

Perhaps… however, our MOS on citations says the citation style should be consistent throughout any given article. So (to play WIKILAWYER) if the other citations in the article all have blue clicky numbers, and the book citation doesn’t - that book citation needs to be amended to make it consistent with the others. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

And, they probably should—but it also talks about "challenged or likely to be challenged". If you're writing a plot summary, then one normally presumes that the work itself is the source, and it's unlikely, as long as it sticks to a simple description of the plot, that anyone would challenge it. On the other hand, interpretations of the plot, such as what Ahab and Moby Dick are supposed to represent or be metaphors for, are likely to be challenged and do require sourcing. And in some cases, if a particular work is well known to have a plot that's complex or difficult to follow, there probably should be more sourcing for the summary than just "I watched/read it and this is what it looked like to me", as in that case a particular interpretation probably is likely to be challenged. But for an episode of My Little Pony, the work itself is probably plenty good enough. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I doubt Twilight Sparkle would ever do that… citation demanded! Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

That actually gets back to something I've often said: No one should ever argue that the sky is blue and no citation is needed. If someone argues that "H₂O is the chemical formula of water" needs a citation, just cite it; that will take far less time than arguing over "BLUESKY". If something really is such common knowledge, citing it should be trivial. In that case, when someone demands a citation, just cite the episode and be done with it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

one caveat on citing the primary work is that for very long works or works spanning multiple volumes, and the language describing the plot is not clear where this occurs, then there should be some type of guide post referencing to help the reader narrow this down. Verifability does imply we should not have to make the reader search for hours to find where something is referenced, so while we'd not need such sourcing to summarize a two hour film, we would ask some time of pointers be there if going to a multiseadon television series. But that's generally why we try to ask editors to write out of universe and include these types of markers, which avoids the needs to reference and can feel more natural for an encyclopedia. Masem (t) 21:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Where is the requirement?

@User:Sławomir Biały: In support of your revert you say "changes to core policies *require* discussion." I don't see that requirement at WP:EDITCONSENSUS or WP:PGBOLD. Where are you seeing it? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I thanked Sławomir Bialy for the revert. I see reverting as a form of objecting and regret that WP:ONUS doesn't apply to Butwhatdoiknow's re-insertion. WP:TALKFIRST's wording ("typically precedes") shows what normal procedure should be. And now I hope there is a requirement, seek consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:07, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: The problem with "reverting as a form of objection" is that it gives the reverted editor no information regarding the substantive reason for the reversion (if there is one).

Also, TALKFIRST is one of two alternative ways an editor may proceed that are set forth in WP:PGCHANGE. PGBOLD is the other one and it doesn't require prior discussion.

And TALKFIRST only applies to "substantive changes." Since neither Sławomir Bialy or you have given a substantive reason for objecting, it is not clear that TALKFIRST even applies. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

I can't tell whether you're saying that reverting is not a form of objection. The "reverted editor" that you're bringing up is Smlandarthurfan who changed "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources ..." to "Base articles largely on independant and reliable secondary sources ..." with edit summary = "Original research" -- so "the information regarding the substantive reason" was missing for the insertion. To me it looks substantial, though of course if you defend it by saying it's meaningless then I'll accept that. I'll say no more in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The edit summary merely points to the section being edited, which is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Original research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Reverting without giving a substantive rationale is an empty objection. Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" explains why this is a bad thing.

Perhaps the original edit summary was deficient. If so, the reverting editor could have said something like "not clear what this addition accomplishes, please explain on talk." He didn't. And two wrongs don't make a right. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a certain irony in claiming a revert was unjustified on procedural grounds, not being justified to your satisfaction, while solely citing an essay Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" that is not even substantively related to the proposed change in any way. Here's a tip: Don't revert due solely to don't revert solely due to "no consensus". In this case, no substantive reason was given for this edit, and you added no substantive reason for the change. The original editor changed multiple policies to add the requirement of "independent" to the sources. Given that it is not clear what that even means, I reverted it. We have policy pages on reliable sources and secondary sources. "Independence" can be an important consideration, but it seems that this is not a well-developed policy requirement, and am a little worried about instruction-creep. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Sławomir Biały says: "it is not clear what that even means," "not a well developed policy requirement," and "am a little worried about instruction-creep."

BOOM, there it is! Three substantive reasons for his revert. Had he said any of those things when he reverted I would not have reverted his revert. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2026

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

https://www.gypsyrosearchive.com/gypsyandnicktimeline

I just want to add this site as a reference because it contains case files. ~2026-26131-00 (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

You're on the wrong page. If you provide a link to the article you want to add that link to, someone might be able to help you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsy-Rose_Blanchard here is the Wikipedia page I wanted to add this link to. Thank you Walnut08 (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, @Walnut08. Here's what I suggest:

1. Go to Talk:Gypsy-Rose Blanchard
2. Click the "Add topic" button.
3. Write a short note suggesting that https://www.gypsyrosearchive.com/gypsyandnicktimeline be added in the Wikipedia:External links section.
4. Post that topic, and then wait to see what other people say. (If you want, you can click the [Subscribe] button on your newly added topic, and then you'll get notifications if anyone replies. Otherwise, you can just check back in a couple of days.)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Update WP:V to require verifiability through article sources

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

It's time to update V to require that all content not merely be verifiable to sources, but to be verifiable to sources in the article. I propose two changes to do this. In the lede, change Each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable. to Each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable to sources in the article. In WP:BURDEN, change A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it could be cited, even if there is no citation for it in the article at the moment. to A fact or claim is "verifiable" if a reliable source that supports it is cited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  So:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONUS and achieving consensus

See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:ONUS vs WP:NOCON, or don't, as it's a million miles long at this point.

ONUS currently says: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content."

The idea of "achieving consensus" seems to have been reduced to "must start a discussion on the talk page". What we actually mean is more like "must finish a discussion on the talk page".

What we want is:

• Bob Blanker gives some plausible-sounding excuse for removing it (e.g., an edit summary of "Too much detail").
• Ima Includer does something or another to show that Bob Blanker's removal is not supported by the community. That "something" could include:
  1. Reverting with a link to recent discussion. ONUS doesn't ban "Rv editing against consensus; see Talk:Example#RFC on including this" edit summaries.
  2. Having a consensus-oriented discussion on the Talk: page or elsewhere (no matter who starts it, it's Ima Includer's job to make sure that it doesn't stall or get abandoned with no result).
  3. Pursuing all the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution until either consensus has been reached or Ima Includer wants to give up on including that.

With that in mind, I wonder how you all feel about changing ONUS to say something like:

• (current) "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content."
• (new) "If material is disputed or removed from an article for any plausible reason, then the editor who wants to include the disputed content has the responsibility of demonstrating a positive consensus for inclusion of those disputed facts or claims.^[a]"

I realize that's a long footnote, but maybe it would provide a level of clarity that would stop some of the wikilawyering. I'd love to hear whether you all think I've missed anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Do we really need so much verbiage? We seem to want to micromanage every dispute, when all we really need to say is something along the lines of: “Go ahead and boldly edit (whether to add or remove text) - if someone objects to your addition or removal: go to the article’s talk page, discuss, and reach a consensus. If a consensus can not be reached: see WP:NOCON”. Blueboar (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Your off the cuff wording is something I'd strongly question as it seems to be advocating for a changing of ONUS to "consensus to remove" which would be a complete reversal of our stance whereby we default to exclusion of material if no consensus. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Blueboar, if, after all these years, you expect me to be concise, then I really can't help you. ;-)

I think this covers almost everything that people have claimed. (I would strongly object to "see WP:NOCON", but you know that. I still believe that creating NOCON was one of the worst mistakes I've made in any policy, and although 90% of it is practical and helpful, I think the remaining problems are sufficient reasons to trash the whole thing.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Although I agree that editor are taking 'find consensus' as 'have a discussion', that's a failure of editors to understand WP:CONSENSUS rather than ONUS. If they areaking that mistake with ONUS they'reakinh it everywhere. Also I can't help but feel that 'Plausible reason' is just going to be used to wikilayer and bash newcomers who haven't learnt Wikipedia's in house language. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:03, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem isn't even that editors take it as 'have a discussion'. The problem is that they take it as 'start a discussion'. The task in ONUS is for the would-be includer to finish the consensus process (discussion or otherwise). "Hey, I'm starting a discussion" is not enough. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That's all still a lack of understanding CONSENSUS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Far, far too complicated to work as intended and also introduces more cause for edit-warring in my opinion. The introduction of "plausible reason" will inevitably result in people deciding your reason for removal wasn't "plausible" for instance. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that will be a problem in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• As I said before, I think the first step is to acknowledge that it's disputed and add a label to that effect to the text. We're unlikely to reach a conclusion soon; but a label of some sort will both warn editors that they may be stepping on a minefield by invoking it if they don't understand the specific fault-lines of the dispute, and, perhaps more importantly, it will pull people in who might be able to advance the discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 22:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Is the following suggestion a material change?

• (current) "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on editors seeking to include disputed content."
• (new) "If the inclusion of any facts or claims is disputed, then the editor who wants to include the disputed content is responsible for demonstrating a positive consensus for inclusion of the disputed material.

(I don't intend it to be a change in meaning; I'm hoping for a sentence that is clearer to people who haven't been talking about this for the last five or ten years.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it captures the intention better and is easier to understand. One niggle though, which I have met in the wild, is whether "wants to include the disputed content" only refers to adding new content or refers to keeping old content that is now disputed as well. Zero^talk 05:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Then "the editor who wants to add, keep, or restore"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

How about basing it on the state of the article, rather than on actions that change the article? Such as: "If the suitability of any fact or claim for an article is disputed, then the editors who wish it to be in the article are responsible for obtaining a positive consensus for its presence." Can be tweak in multiple directions, of course. Zero^talk 06:02, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's "on the state of the article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It refers to what is in the article, rather than to the process of inserting or deleting stuff. Subtle, I know. The basic philosophy is that we care more about having good articles than we care about how they got to be good. Zero^talk 07:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this a status-quo-like concept? Whatever is in the article is what we'll have, since we can't agree on what to have?

Or is it "do whatever makes the article better", which is the ideal, but which is unfortunately a useless rule in the specific situation of editors being unable reach an agreement on what makes the article better? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Catch 22 re ONUS vs NOCON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fake sourcing

I think that there should be stronger language somewhere making it clearer that false attribution of claims to sources is really not OK. It is deceptive towards readers and fellow-editors and it also misrepresents and potentially vilifies the authors cited. This includes false attribution arising 'accidentally' due to people adding their own unsourced claims to sentences/passages that already have an added footnote with a source, thereby making the impression that the cited source also contains their claim. I keep encountering this sort of thing frequently; when I find a seemingly sourced claim that looks dubious, the attribution more often than not turns out to be false, i.e. the claim is absent in the cited source. (I quite recently ran into an unusually blatant case where a claim about a phenomenon was even explicitly attributed to a named scholar in the text, with a citation - not to mention that it was included the lede of the article based on that - only to find that there is no such claim, nor even any mention of the phenomenon in the cited text at all.) Of course, in many cases people have clearly just failed at reading comprehension and have misinterpreted their source - there is not much to do about that - but in many other cases it obviously can't be just misinterpretation. Anonymous44 (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you think that a person who is willing to post totally fake sources (e.g., generated by an LLM, and they didn't check to see whether it was a real source) is going to be deterred by having a page somewhere that says only people who are either evil or stupid would do that? I don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that we can catch many obvious violations of WP:V using an automated edit filter. Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Does WP:ONUS apply to this discussion?

I see there's already some relevant discussion on this page, so I thought it might be helpful to have another example. @Revirvlkodlaku and I have been discussing some material on Emily Chang (journalist), and it has turned into a discussion of WP:ONUS. While we disagree on content, we've been able to find bits and pieces of content consensus as we've gone along and made improvements to the article. However, there has been a process dispute about whether WP:ONUS applies, and whether the disputed material should stay out of the article while it's discussed on talk. Here's links to the article history and talk page discussion. What do you think? Is WP:ONUS applicable here, or is my interpretation incorrect? —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Honestly it would have been quicker to find a third opinion than to have that discussion about ONUS. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

"whether the disputed material should stay out of the article while it's discussed on talk" See Wikipedia:QUO for a best practice during discussion. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Could someone explain why it matters whether disputed material remains in or out of an article during discussion? I just don’t understand why people get worked up about it. Blueboar (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

It decides whether time is on your side or the other side. If it's out of the article until you reach consensus, and you want it out, then you have control and you can stonewall. If it stays in until you reach consensus, the other side has control and they can stonewall. We as a community think there is no deadline, which means stonewalling can be forever. So yeah, it really matters where the default is, particularly in CTOPs. It decides who is holding whose feet to the fire.—S Marshall T/C 22:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Have we really descended to “holding feet to the fire” attitudes instead of “let’s see if we can find compromise” attitudes? Sigh Blueboar (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed that WP:QUO is good advice. Barring contentious material or other kinds of material discussed there, just retain the stable version of the article until there's a consensus in favor of changing it. DonIago (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

In re "But on process, WP:ONUS is always applicable": I think that it would be more accurate to say that ONUS applies to questions about the inclusion of facts/claims. It doesn't apply to non-inclusion edits (e.g., rearranging the order of sections in an article) or non-fact/claim content (e.g., adding or removing a section heading or copyedits that don't change the facts). ONUS would not be helpful if two editors were arguing over something like capitalization (How could you "exclude" that?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, per your read, does the (non)inclusion of a list of awards that are mentioned and referenced within the article fall under ONUS? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh, please please pretty please decide that ONUS actually DOES apply to capitalization disputes - and that we must exclude the disputed word completely until the dispute is settled! That would resolve three quarters of the endless disputes over at MOSCAPS. Blueboar (talk) 03:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)