Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

Reverted to status quo

Here is the history of the first sentence of WP:V#Reliable sources:

Feb 2006: Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources who have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Oct 2006: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

2009: Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

2011: Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Jan 2019: Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Apr 2019: Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

There has been talk page discussion about this sentence in 2011, 2012, 2013 (here, here, and multiple threads here), 2015, and 2016. Although it was discussed repeatedly, it seems the 2011 version had remained unchanged for about eight years, until January 2019.

I have restored the 2011 version because the 2019 changes lack consensus. I don't think we should insert a "must", or change "third party" to "independent", in a core policy, without following WP:TALKFIRST's guidance that Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general. Leviv ich 18:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Levivich: You placed this section under the wrong heading - the specific change you just reverted was discussed under #Small technical change to wording, so I suggest moving this there. I also oppose your revert. The "third-party" word was replaced with "independent" as a result of the WP:Third-party sources page moving to WP:Identifying and using independent sources for good reason, because "third-party" is somewhat inaccurate. I also object to this revert of yours because its clearly as a result of your vote in an RfC, so you're moving the goalposts by messing with a core policy page. -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wrt the heading issue, I've promoted this to a level 2 header, and I'll note the specific edits I reverted were the two 2019 edits diff'd above, and they are the subject of the threads on this page titled #Small technical change to wording and #Must and should. Wrt moving the goal posts, I am moving them back to where they were 2011–2019. Wrt to the RfC, your entire RfC is predicated on the "independent" language that was added less than a month ago. These are bold changes that I'm reverting per WP:BRD, and I think if these changes are to be made (adding "must", or changing "third party" to "independent"), these are substantive changes that require an WP:RfC at WP:VPP per the WP:TALKFIRST language I quoted above. Netoholic has reverted me, so I'm not going to edit war over it, I'll leave it to other editors to decide. Leviv ich 18:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Changing the text from "third-party" to "independent" is largely housekeeping. WP:Third-party sources was merged/redirected into WP:IS back in 2016. -- Netoholic @ 18:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

      I don't think it's a housekeeping matter, I think it's a substantive change. I read XOR'easter and Masem express similar opinions at WT:Notability (academics)#Break 1, the discussion about this that was had prior to your opening that RfC. Leviv ich 18:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I also don't think that it housekeeping. While I think that some future evolution in this area may be good (e.g. to include "objective") I think that "independent" is a huge and bad change. It could start a wikilawyering extravaganza of knocking out good-for-the-purpose sources.North8000 (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I wish Netholic would refrain from editing any policy. All changes should result from discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, so we can properly understand your objection to basing articles on "independent" sources (rather than "third-party" sources), would you please explain what you think the difference is? Feel free to give a hypothetical example of an article that would be ideally based upon non-independent, third-party sources. That would probably be particularly helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(partial cross-post) My understanding is:

1. First-party source: [1]
2. Third-party non-independent source: [2]
3. Third-party independent source: [3]

Example of the difference in action: an academic's university profile is third-party but not independent. Can we cite to it for facts? Can we use it to establish notability under NPROF? If the language is "third party", the answer is yes. If the language is "independent", the answer is no. I understand that some editors have taken the view that "third party" is a synonym for "independent", and thus in my example, the university would not be considered "third party". I disagree with this view (and I don't think English dictionary definitions or usage supports it, either). I also want to point out while I'm here that when most editors say "independent" what they actually mean is "interested". For example, in the classic car crash hypothetical: the driver is first-party. The driver's spouse, who is in the car, is a third-party interested witness. The pedestrian on the sidewalk who witnesses the crash is a third-party disinterested witness. Using terms like "independent" instead of "interested" muddle the meaning IMO. Leviv ich 20:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The consequence of this interpretation extends far beyond PROF. We would have to start accepting corporate profiles, book profiles from publisher sites, posts about music artists on their label's website - these are all places that could reference awards or honors, but obviously have a financial, legal, or intellectual interdependence on the subject. I find "interested" far more vague than independent. A newspaper article about any topic could be described as "interested" in it. -- Netoholic @ 20:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We already accept such sources, see, e.g. WP:ABOUTSELF. A newspaper article–or, rather, a newspaper–is not "interested" in the subject of its reporting, and cannot be, as that would be a violation of journalistic ethics. For example, a journalist can't write a story about a company the journalist owns stock in, without disclosing that. Leviv ich 20:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think you've got that quite right. An academic's university profile is not a third-party source.

In your example, the driver's spouse could be a third party, and the insurance company is a third party. The witness on the sidewalk is not any party at all. (The person the car hit, or the owner of whatever the car hit, is the second party.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, semantics aside, the point is that an academic's university profile can be used as a source for information about the academic, and it can also be used as a source to establish notability under NPROF. If the university profile says "Levivich is President of the University", there is no reason on earth to doubt that this is true, and no reason we can't use it as a source. The WP:V policy shouldn't say otherwise (and, currently, it does say otherwise). Leviv ich 20:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We cannot push semantics aside; the whole point of this discussion is semantics. Are we going to say that PROF is wrong because it encourages people to build BLP articles from first-party sources, or are we going to say that PROF is wrong because it encourages editors to build BLP articles from non-independent sources? There are no options in WP:V's history that end up with PROF being correct about building articles from faculty bios on university webpages, so the only question left is whether we use the journalistic concept of 'independence' (which Jc3s5h convinced me years ago is ultimately clearer) or the legalistic concept of multi-party lawsuits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Oxford: a person who is involved in a situation in addition to the two main people involved

Cambridge: a third person or organization less directly involved in a matter than the main people or organizations that are involved and a person who is not one of the two main people involved in an argument or legal case

Meriam-Webster: a person other than the principals

Dictionary.com: any party to an incident, case, quarrel, etc., who is incidentally involved

Collins: someone who is not one of the main people involved in a business agreement or legal case, but who is involved in it in a minor role, (British) a person who is involved by chance or only incidentally in a legal proceeding, agreement, or other transaction, esp one against whom a defendant claims indemnity, (American) a person in a case or matter other than the principals

Re my example below: the Pulitzer Committee's press release is first-party for Pulitzer, second-party for Levivich; Levivich's blog entry is first-party for Levivich, second-party for Pulitzer; the University's press release is third-party for both Pulitzer and Levivich, under every definition of "third party" of which I am aware. It's not the University that is receiving the prize, the University is not the first or second party of that transaction. The University is third party, though it's not independent or disinterested. I can't prove this, but I'm inclined to think that, for the 13-year history of the language "third party" being used in this sentence, up until last month, the thousands of editors who read it and implemented it probably thought that it meant "third party" in the dictionary sense, and not in some other non-dictionary sense, like as a synonym for "independent". Leviv ich 21:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

...and exactly zero of those definitions indicate that a university is a third-party with respect to its own staff, and therefore exactly zero of those definitions indicate that the profile written by the university, on its own website, about its own faculty members, could possibly be a third-party source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

All those definitions indicate that if the University issues a press release that says, "Levivich won a Pulitzer", that press release would be a third-party source (since it's not saying "we won a Pulitzer" nor "we gave a Pulitzer", it's not first-party or second party). Same if the University profile page says "Levivich won a Pulitzer". Leviv ich 21:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say a university is neither third-party nor independent with respect to an academic at the university. If the academic wins acclaim, the university bathes in the reflected glory. If the academic obtains a grant, some of the money goes, directly or indirectly, to the university.

The distinction between "first party" and "third party interested", if it makes any sense at all, could only be deciphered in the context of a financial transaction, where there are actual legal parties. Using "third party" outside of a financial transaction is a loose metaphor which cannot survive close analysis. Which is another reason to use "independent" rather than "third party"; we shouldn't base one of our most important policies on loose metaphors.

Finally, I object to the concern about notability. This is the verifiability policy, not the notability policy. Leviv asked "Example of the difference in action: an academic's university profile is third-party but not independent. Can we cite to it for facts? Can we use it to establish notability under NPROF?" If the word in this policy is "independent" then the academic's university profile is a primary source, which can be used to support facts, but with care. As for using the profile to establish notability, this policy doesn't care; it isn't the notability policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

When a professor receives a grant, the university is an "interested third party". "Interested third party" and "disinterested third party" are terms I commonly hear in all sorts of contexts. Maybe it's different in different parts of the world, but this is the usage of the words I'm familiar with. As to notability, right now, WP:V#Notability says "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and people like Netoholic are arguing that at AfD, it's "core policy" that all articles must have non-independent sources to survive deletion. This is why I investigated how this language got to be this way in the first place, and why I reverted it back to the 2011–2019 language, and why I think it should stay at the status quo until there's a VPP RfC to change it. Leviv ich 20:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether the university is a first-party or third-party to a grant depends upon the wording of the contract. I've seen both. However, there is no world in which the university is a third party to its faculty, in its own relationship with its faculty. And that relationship is the only one that matters when we're talking about what the employer wrote on its website about its employee. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Suppose a Pulitzer press release and a University press release are the only two sources that exist that say Professor Levivich won the Pulitzer Prize in 2019. Can we use either or both to !vote keep at Levivich's AfD? Can we use either or both for the sentence "Levivich won the Pulitzer Prize in 2019" in any article? Leviv ich 21:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Strictly for notability and whether the article should be part of Wikipedia - those sources should not factor in. They can, though, support that statement reasonably reliably - in the capacity of expanding the article. -- Netoholic @ 21:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Netoholic, I really don't think you get what the SNGs are saying across the project. Where a criterion, such as receiving a notable prize, is met (as documented by a source which is not independent of the prize - and why would it be) - then that contributes to the presumption of notability per the SNG concerned. Then, per the GNG, it is also necessary to have independent RS to source the article - all BLPs, in particular, must have independent sources. (A BLP where the only piece of RS information was that the subject received a Pulitzer, for example, would not be a viable article.) This is literally the whole difference between the presumption of Notability per a SNG, and the GNG requirements. So of course these awards count towards the SNG presumption of Notability. Newimpartial (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really. With the exception of PROF, the SNGs are saying that if you meet these criteria, there will almost certainly be enough independent sources to justify an article. Look for words like "presumed" and "rebuttable presumption" in those SNGs. PROF is the only one that has steadfastly resisted that approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, are you giving up on the idea that a profile page on the university's website isn't ever going to be a third-party source for the prof? I'd consider that progress, but I'm not sure whether you've switched to unlikely examples (the number of Pulitzer Prizes awarded, but never mentioned in newspapers can safely be assumed to be zero) because you're abandoning the idea of basing articles on university profile page, or because you're desperately searching for any example that would make the university be a third-party to its own faculty. So, just in case it's the second, then let me point out that if you do find a press release that could be credibly claimed to be a third-party, then WP:BLP would forbid you from using it (because we do not accept self-published, third-party sources for anything at all about a living person). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm comfortable with my understanding of the meaning of the phrase "third party", and I've quoted five dictionary definitions above that support my understanding of that meaning. When an academic receives an award, a statement published by the academic's university reporting on that award (whether it's a bio page or a press release or whatever) is a statement from a "third party", in the regular English dictionary meaning of that term (unless the university is giving the award). So a university's website can be a "third party" source for information about, for example, the university's employees. Whether it's an acceptable source for an article doesn't really depend on my understanding of the meaning of words like "third party", but rather on community consensus. So I think that, yes, we should accept a university website profile page as a source for basic biographical information. For example, if the university profile page says the person is the president of the university, I think it should be OK to cite to the profile page for the statement "so-and-so is president of such-and-such university". I also think that the university profile page should be considered a suitable source to establish that so-and-so meets NPROF by virtue of being president of a university (assuming it's a "major" university). The university is a reliable source of information about its president, deans, faculty, etc. Leviv ich 22:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Being a third-party to an event (the awarding of a prize) does not make the university a third-party with respect to the people involved. (Also, as noted below, you couldn't use that source in practice, because BLP forbids it.)

The question about independence and PROF has never been about reliability. We expect all organizations, from the grandest university right down to your local coffee shop, to be reliable sources for some kinds of information about their staff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

In the example I gave, they're not a "third party to an event", they're a "third party" to a transaction between two parties (the award giver and the award receiver). See the definitions of third party above. This isn't as complicated as you're trying to make it. "Third party" means "involved but not first or second party". Leviv ich 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A transaction is a type of event. (An event is "something that happens", and transactions are one of the many kinds of "things that happen". Not "event" like "fancy party".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Right. And the university did not participate in the hypothetical event of an academic receiving an award. That's why the university would be a third party source for information about that event: because it's not a participant in the event. That's what the dictionaries say. I'm beating a dead horse here so I'm going to disengage now. Leviv ich 23:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't quit yet; you're almost there.

So Award Association gave an award to Alice Expert, who was employed by Big University at the time. Big U self-publishes something about the event. And then Alice died, because we need to get around the BLP ban on third-party self-published sources about living people. Now what?

The Big U publication is third-party to the event (at most; they could be considered entirely independent, depending upon all the facts and circumstances), but Big U is not third-party to Alice. Their publication about the event could be evidence of notability for an article specifically about the event ("Awarding of Whatever to Alice Expert"), but it still cannot be used as evidence of notability for an article on "Alice Expert", because Big U is not third-party to Alice.

In short: I think you'll find that it's more complicated than you expected. This is about real-world relationships, with all of their infinite variety and complexity and shades of gray. The same source can mention people and organizations with which the author has first-party relationships, third-party relationships, and non-relationships. You have to evaluate those sources in the context of what you want to use. So, yes: Let's say that's a third-party relationship to the event. That's still not a third-party relationship to Alice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fine to use Big U's press release as a source for the statement "Alice received Award". Moreover, I think we can use Award Association's press release as a source for the same statement, too, even though that would be neither third party nor independent. A real-world example would be that we can use statements by the National Academy of Sciences about who is an NAS fellow, either to verify such claims in an article, or to establish the fellow's notability. In other words, we could write an entire article about a NAS fellow sourced only to an NAS-published profile. There are no reliability concerns, because an NAS fellow is definitely notable, and NAS is the best possible source for who is and isn't a fellow of NAS. This exact point about using NAS as a source for notability is being raised over at the NPROF RfC by multiple editors, and the same point applies for verifiability (i.e., verifying the statement that so-and-so is an NAS fellow) as it does for notability (i.e., establishing that someone meets NPROF by virtue of being an NAS fellow). (Similarly, the NAS statement would be a primary source, but that's still OK, as many articles are based entirely on primary sources.) Leviv ich 00:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This seems very WIKILAWYER to me. It seems to me that the point about BLP limitations on SPS is to prevent biased, defamatory, COI or inaccurate information from appearing in some of our most sensitive articles. To say that an institution (or a grant-awarding agency) can't be cited in a BLP as saying that a grant was awarded, in direct contravention of WP:V, USESPS and COMMONSENSE, strikes me as a direct contravention of BURO and ENC. What would motivate us to interpret BLP that way?

WP:N, as I have noted elsewhere, is a beast of a slightly different hue. Newimpartial (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Our usual method of dealing with this (this problem comes up all the time for for-profit corporations and political parties) is to just admit that Big U. is not really a third-party for anything connected to Alice, but Levivich is insisting that they need to be. So he can choose that it's third-party and therefore completely un-usable under BLP (because it's self-published), or he can choose that it's not third-party and therefore no good for notability. What he can't have is a declaration that it's third-party wrt Alice for notability rules but not third-party wrt Alice for BLP rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There isn't a WP:BLPSPS issue because Big U's press release is not a self-published source. That Big U is "third-party" to Alice also means Big U's press release about Alice isn't a self-published source (it's not published by Alice). Hence, the longstanding 2011–2019 version of the language was not in conflict with BLPSPS or NPROF. Leviv ich 00:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, self-published means that the author is also the publisher.[4][5][6][7][8] The contents, and all other considerations (number of lawyers involved, date it happened on, whether it's on paper or not...), are irrelevant. Self-published status is a simple, two-question thing: One, Did X write it? Two, Did X publish it? If the answer to both of those questions is "yes", then it's self-published. Otherwise, it's not. Therefore: If Big U. both wrote and published something (press release, blog post, plaque on a building...), then it is self-published. (Perhaps you were thinking of something else?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

We really should trash the whole thing and just say "objective and knowledgeable with respect to the article text which cited it". North8000 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Independent sources need not be objective. If a famous reviewer said she liked a movie, that is not an objective conclusion, but the information can nevertheless be included in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

She is objective and expert on stating what she likes. So, under my idea, a good source to support "she said the movie was good" but not a suitable source to support "the movie was good". Yes, it would be a big change, IMO for the better. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

To me, that's all encapsulated in the word "reliable". Articles must be based on reliable sources. is all that needs saying. The encyclopedia's content is so varied (encompassing, as it does, every possible topic) that it is counterproductive to attempt to dictate a one-size-fits-all definition of "reliable" in a policy. Sometimes it means secondary, sometimes it means independent, sometimes it doesn't. I trust editors will determine what "reliable" means for particular articles, particular facts, and particular sources. We can have subject-specific guidelines to help, if needed. Leviv ich 21:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing wp:reliable sources with actually reliable sources. Wp:rs just requires certain trappings, not actual reliability. Nowhere in policy or guidelines is actual reliability a requirement to be a wp:rs.  :-) North8000 (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Break

@Netoholic and Levivich: the confusion is not between "third party" and "independent". The confusion has developed between "independent" and "secondary". What we need are secondary sources: uninvolved sources, sources one step removed. A driver has a car accident; statements from the driver and any witnesses are primary sources. A newspaper writes about the accident; that newspaper article is a secondary source.

Primary versus secondary is the distinction that matters.

At some point, editors started calling secondary (or "third party") sources "independent", and that's okay; it's perhaps easier to understand. Unfortunately, people began reinterpreting and over-complicating it. That has led to a confusing plethora of essays. Now, at PROF, it seems that people are interpreting "independent" to refer to primary sources not written by the subject. That's a misunderstanding of the sourcing policies. It's therefore important not to cause any further confusion on this page. The notability guidelines are supposed to use the definitions in the policies and not invent their own or base definitions on essays.

Here is a basic definition from the anthropologist Ruth Finnegan, emeritus professor at the Open University (bold added):

When considering how researchers use documentary sources to collect and analyze evidence, one of the most commonly invoked distinctions is between "primary'" and "secondary" sources. Historians and others conventionally regard as primary sources those that were written (or otherwise came into being) by the people directly involved and at a time contemporary or near contemporary with the period being investigated. Primary sources, in other words, form the basic and original material for providing the researcher's raw evidence. Secondary sources, by contrast, are those that discuss the period studied but are brought into being at some time after it, or otherwise somewhat removed from the actual events. Secondary sources copy, interpret or judge material to be found in primary sources. Thus, the Magna Carta would be a primary source for the history of thirteenth-century England, while an account of thirteenth-century politics by a twentieth-century historian would be a secondary source. Both can be useful – but they are different. There are many possible controversies over detailed definition here, but by and large the distinction between primary and secondary material is widely accepted as a fundamental one, defined in terms of the "contemporaneity" of the source and closeness to the origin of the data. — Ruth Finnegan (2006). "Using Documents" in Roger Sapsford, Victor Jupp (eds.). Data Collection and Analysis. Sage Publications/Open University, p. 142.

A university announcing a staff appointment is a primary source. It is talking about itself and one of its employees. Not one part of that text has been written (copied, interpreted or judged) by someone uninvolved; indeed some of the text may well have been written by the employee who is the subject of the announcement. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Suppose Oak Ridge National Laboratory writes a press release about its employee receiving an award from the local chapter of the YWCA. [9] Is that a secondary source? What if Oak Ridge writes a press-release-profile about one of its employees as part of a series of profiles about select employees: [10], is that a secondary source? What about Oak Ridge's straight bio page [11], is that secondary? Can any of these sources be used for facts in an article? It's unclear under Finnegan's definition; Oak Ridge is not "directly involved" in the YWCA award, so it seems that press release is secondary. The bio seems primary. The profile seems primary for some things (things at Oak Ridge) and secondary for others (not at Oak Ridge, such as navy service and education). (Under Finnegan's definition.) Leviv ich 22:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The last sentence in the Finnegan quote is the key to answering your question: all of those would be primary sources on the timescale of history, because all of them, "in terms of the "contemporaneity" of the source and closeness to the origin", are contemporaneous sources. This is why people like User:Blueboar come around and remind me that while encyclopedias might be tertiary sources in general, the ancient ones are primary sources, because we use them to learn what people thought at that time, rather than what really is true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What is going on, though? Per WP:SPS and WP:USESPS, the relevant policy and explanatory supplement, it is fine to document facts from either primary or secondary SPS under appropriate circumstances as defined therein. The only issues seem to arise in the case of Notability per WP:N and NBLP but this point seems to have been obscured Newimpartial (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Levivich, you may be mixing up notability and verifiability. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Note however that, per policy, Notability is simply Verifiability using (at least some) independent sources. It isn't supposed to have any additional "mystical" qualities. It seems to me that the struggle against paid editing by NCORPs has tended to obscure this point, when what was needed in this case was basically just bright lines around COI. Newimpartial (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If a "primary" source is defined as one that is contemporaneous, and we don't allow articles to be "based" on such primary sources, then we couldn't have the article Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, because everything that's been written about her has been written contemporaneously. That would be an absurd result. The language of WP:V affects notability insofar as WP:V purports to set rules about what articles "must" be "based on", which is what the language currently says. WP:V#Notability, right now, says If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. If you change the word "independent" to "secondary", you will eliminate the article Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. If we keep the word "independent" in there, it is inconsistent with WP:NPROF (see Netoholic's campaign for an example of the disruption this inconsistency can cause). I suggest there's a reason "third party" has been stable for so long, and that reason is that "third party" is a better term than either "independent" or "secondary" (or, better yet, we should use no term at all). Look at Netoholic's most-recent NPROF RfC right now, and you'll see a dozen editors unanimously agreeing that "must be based on independent sources" is not a requirement for an article. Leviv ich 23:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

What's going on, really, is that an enthusiastic editor, whose account is only about six months old, is trying very hard to find a way to say that there's no WP:PGCONFLICT, even though everyone around him says that there is a conflict, that we all know about the conflict, that we have all known about that conflict for years, and that we're not really in any sort of a rush to fix it.

The reason this page specifically comes in for this multi-page dispute is because it says that notability requires independent sources (as does WP:NOT; I haven't dared to see whether this dispute has spread there yet. It is not always a friendly forum for a nice chat). He thought that changing it to "third-party" sources would get him out of PGCONFLICT jail, but that doesn't work, because there's almost no practical difference among non-self-published sources, and, anyway, BLP outlaws the use of the self-published third-party sources that he hopes will solve his problem. One thing that basically all editors agree upon is that you cannot use a source to prove notability when BLP won't allow you to cite that source in the resulting article. Switching to a primary/secondary distinction would actually mean declaring a lot more profs ineligible for BLPs. (Whether that would be a good or bad outcome, of course, is a matter of personal opinion, but I suspect that this would not be his intended outcome.) For myself, I have been through these conversations several times before, and it's my belief there's a conflict, and that the community is not yet ready to resolve it.

Notability is not merely a matter of verifiability in independent sources. A subject is eligible for an article ("notable" in wikijargon) if all of three conditions are met. Verifiability is only the first. It must also not conflict with WP:NOT, and editors must agree not to merge the contents to a different article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Pardon my naivete, but how would any article that meets the appropriate SNG, NBIO and the GNG, and that does not contain either attack content or puffery, run afoul of NOT? Newimpartial (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:POKEMON characters are the canonical answer to your question. Less colorfully, a telephone-directory-style listing of hotels in a given area can be strictly non-puffy and still fall afoul of NOT (specifically, the WP:NOTDIRECTORY section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If you are aware of any Pokemon characters or lists of hotels that meet NBIO, I would be very interested in hearing about it. :p Newimpartial (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I never mentioned PGCONFLICT and I don't know what you mean by "out of PGCONFLICT jail". All I'm really saying is that this sentence was stable from 2011–2019 and if you want to change it, start an RfC at VPP. I actually don't think there is any conflict or confusion about the 2011–2019 version of the sentence, and hence I don't think it should be changed. Leviv ich 23:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"Switching to a primary/secondary distinction": but we wouldn't be switching. That is the distinction the policy makes. See WP:NOR: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability ..." SarahSV ^(talk) 23:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I only mean that it'd be a change for this particular policy page, not for the whole of Wikipedia's ruleset. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV, WhatamIdoing, over at WT:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability, a slew of editors are rejecting adding either "secondary" or "independent" to NPROF as a requirement. That's notability not verifiability, but it's indication that editors do not believe that all articles "must be based on" either secondary or independent sources. I know Sarah thinks it should be "secondary" and WAID thinks it should be "independent", but have you both considered the possibility that the community at large thinks it should be neither? This is why I think if "third party" is to be changed to either "independent" or "secondary", it should be done with an RfC at VPP. Leviv ich 23:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but that's what you'd expect from the regulars there. That page is largely followed by editors who really, really, really don't want to be constrained by those rules (and it would be a serious constraint), and the very specific RFC proposal isn't as well-written as some other ideas that have been considered. Other than giving an editor a chance to back down from a rather smear-y statement, I don't intend to participate.

Also, it's normal to hold RFCs about this policy's contents here, rather than at the Village Pump. The Village Pump would be a good place for an RFC about a general question affecting multiple pages (e.g., "Should all policies and guidelines say this about all article subjects?") but it's not usual for a question about a single page to be held there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The RfC can be held here, but it should be promoted to the wider community, e.g., a pointer from VPP to a thread on this talk page, following WP:TALKFIRST's guidance that Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general. "Publicized to the community in general" obviously means something more than just, as you did above at #Small technical change to wording, posting a message here and seeing if anyone objects before making the change. Leviv ich 00:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you giving us permission to use Wikipedia's normal processes for this page.

All RfCs are promoted to the wider community. That's how they work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Great! So we're finally in agreement, then: you'll revert your changes, and run an RfC? Leviv ich 00:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

My change (note the singular) was already fully in compliance with Wikipedia's normal processes. I gave people an opportunity to comment for six months (and two days) before making that change. There were more than 1,000 page views here just during the first month. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

But you didn't post an RfC or list it at WP:CENT, and you titled your thread "Small technical change". I don't think you followed the spirit or letter of WP:TALKFIRST. I understand you acted in good faith thinking it was a small uncontroversial change, because you think third party and independent have the same meaning, and before me nobody apparently complained about it. But since I've complained, I can count four editors (myself included) who have expressed agreement that it's a major change not a small technical one. So, I think we should go back to the 2011–2019 stable version, and an RfC, with a pointer at VPP and probably listed at CENT, should be run before changing any part of the sentence. Leviv ich 00:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No. This line exists verbatim at WP:No original research#Using sources using the word "independent" since July 2018 by Dayirmiter. Apart from your intent to change it here today as a result of the academics RfC, no one had challenged the change to "independent". A formal RfC wasn't needed by WhatamIdoing, as he was correctly, reasonably sure that this was a more-or-less simple housekeeping change. -- Netoholic @ 00:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. The line in WP:V#Reliable sources right now is Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This line does not exist verbatim at WP:OR or anywhere else. This line was changed in 2019, as I diff'd at the beginning of this thread, and people have been complaining, including in the previous thread #Must and should. Let's ping those participants and see if they support my reversion to the 2011–2019 version: Johnbod, Izno, Alanscottwalker, TransporterMan, Flyer22 Reborn, RebeccaGreen, Graywalls, BrightR, and Newslinger. Leviv ich 01:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:No original research#Using sources, second paragraph: "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." Exactly where I linked to. -- Netoholic @ 01:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Referring back to SlimVirgin's initial post in this "Break" section, I wouldn't want to put too much emphasis on "secondary" over "independent" because the meaning of "secondary" varies by discipline. If we followed the meaning in history, we couldn't write any articles about anything after the year 2000 or so. I understand that in some science circles, any article published in a decent peer-reviewed journal is considered secondary. I think our understanding of "independent" is better than our understanding of "secondary". Jc3s5h (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's perhaps have that discussion on another day. It's really complicated, and this page is already a mess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

BTW I do appreciate you helping me thoroughly flesh out my ideas on this subject. Leviv ich 00:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Although not specifically related, WP:NORG does a good job of explaining dependent vs independent; and WP:IINFO briefly discusses verifiable doesn't guarantee inclusion. Primary or dependent sources aren't prohibited but some take that as a go ahead to write an article that is a written collage that assemble sources together to embellish positive and favorable contents. In general, there are two meanings to reliable sources on Wikipedia. First is for admissibility in reliably establishing notability; and second for reliability in fact-checking. The definition of "based on" is a controversy of its own. The wording could use expansion on definition of "based on" but "must be based on secondary sources" without further qualification doesn't reflect the general standing consensus in my opinion and I can't support that wording. Graywalls (talk) 02:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Just to answer the ping, I prefer WAID's use of independent. That aside, I'm positively flabbergasted at the tone of the discussion from multiple, experienced, users who seem to have created a walled garden for academics to not pass our core content policies, as well as the walled-garden that exists which leaves that particular guideline as one of the errant notability guidelines not requiring independent sourcing. Many of them wear anti-PAID and -COI hats on a regular basis too! --Izno (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Izno: it's the use of "independent" that has caused this problem, because it's too malleable. "Secondary" is much less fluid, and it's defined by scholarly sources. That's why we should stick to the primary/secondary distinction. I'm not arguing that looking at independence has no place, but editors have to learn to walk before they can run, and the problems here are caused by editors who are (a) using these terms in radically different and confusing ways, and/or (b) focusing only on what they want to achieve in one situation, forgetting that Wikipedia is a complex ecosystem, and that change that seems good to you in one place can lead to change that's bad in another. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I agree with Jc3s5h that most editors have a better grasp of independent than of secondary. If you ask them whether a statement by Monsanto about their herbicide is independent, then almost all of them are pretty good at figuring out that it's not. But if you ask them whether that statement is secondary – that's much harder for most editors.

I also want to echo Sarah's point about this ecosystem being complex. Wikipedia:Policy writing is hard in general, but this particular area has some non-obvious pitfalls. It is very easy to change a sourcing policy to say (for example) that BLPs should be based upon what the subjects what to say about themselves, and then end up with a policy that says multinational companies can have articles for every single product they've ever produced. (Or you push the policy in the other direction, and accidentally ban articles about experimental drugs.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The policy that discusses source types is No original research

And WP:NOR says (at WP:PSTS): "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

This is the policy of the English Wikipedia. If there are no secondary or tertiary sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on the topic. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Which is why the statement in this policy is entirely wrong of confusing, it says nothing about primary, secondary or tertiary, and "must be based on independent reliable sources" is either wrong or it is hopelessly confused. Because "must be based on reliable sources" is generally correct and much less confused. "Based" is part of the problem, it has no meaning, here, unless the meaning is all sources, and it is correct that all sources must be reliable but not that they be independent. The other part of the problem is the inclusion of "independent", itself, partly because there is little way to judge it in the abstract, because the question is independent of what, which depends on context in which it is used, and partly because it is entirely false that we don't base content of articles on reliable sources that someone will argue are not independent. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Alan, what needs to happen is two things: (1) we should copy the two sentences above from NOR, and add them to this policy to replace the sentence you highlight; and (2) we should remove links to essays about "independent" from the two sourcing policies. The word "independent" is too fluid, and the ambiguity is being used to push out the need for secondary sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah's suggestion. Leviv ich 13:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to put up the huge WARNING sign here as this is going to create a lot of problems - these are not my issues, but ones I know a large swathe of editors will have based on the "inclusionist v deletionist" war. Verifyability is pillar policy, but notability (where secondary sources matter most) will always remain a guideline. We should not make it appear that secondary sources are required (They are for any statements that might trip on NOR and NPOV). Any attempts in the past that have given even the slightest bit of allowance to make notability policy based have been flatted rejected. --Masem (t) 13:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hang on, Masem. WP:NOR is one of the three core content policies. It's the policy that deals with source typology. Please read it carefully again: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

You seem to be saying you've been editing for years without realizing this. Secondary sources are indeed needed to establish notability, no matter what any guideline says. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

They are not, however, required to establish the presunption of Notability; see WP:N and cf. WP:NODEADLINE. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: you're referring to a guideline and an essay. I don't know what they say that you believe supports a different position, but WP:NOR is a core content policy. The notability guidelines and any essays should be consistent with it. The difficulty here is that PROF isn't. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please don't WIKILAWYER. I not citing WP:N and NODEADLINE as authorities against NOR. I am pointing to the degree of harmony that all three have shown throughout the project. NOR does not mean that IR soures have to be provided before article is written, or even for an article to be saved from deletion (with the exception of BLPs). That is not the way WP's processes have ever worked. Sources must exist, and must eventually produced, but requiring that they be produced prior to article publication wouldn't be a matter of "consistency", it would be a sea change to how the project works and a challenge to Wikipedia's pillars. Newimpartial (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying: I am very well aware of the need for secondary sources for notability. But key is, WP editors routinely reject any attempt to make anything that would make WP:N a policy level page, rather than a guideline. That's why I caution bringing in secondary sources into WP:V as policy because that is not a requirement for WP:V. If you do this without being careful about wording, and given any impression that WP:N has policy-strength behind it, there will be major problems based on reactions in the past. --Masem (t) 19:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

When's the last time someone suggested just merging WP:V into WP:NOR so we have one policy document about what sources we can and can't use? Leviv ich 14:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Combine? I don't think that works. Notability is a utilitarian, form, organization process, where V is a substance principle. For example, we can write about a person in multiple places in the pedia under V, notability looks to the process of when is there one dedicated organizational place, too. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Alanscottwalker, Levivich was asking about WP:V and NOR, not WP:V and WP:N. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This. Plus, "original research" is also different from "verifyability". I would be 100% all-in for a separate policy-level page on "identifying sources" along the lines of reliability, independence, primary/secondary, first/third party which V/NOR/NPOV and all other PAG can point to, pulling the language out of NOR into a separate page. This also gets to the point about documenting the discrepancy of primary/secondary between historians and other academic areas, and set what principle definitions we are using on WP. --Masem (t) 15:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, I agree that V and NOR should be combined. We tried years ago and succeeded for a while, but then had to hold a wide RfC and it failed to gain consensus. But you're right to spot that they essentially address the same issue. Having said that, please don't propose it. In the current climate, it would cause chaos. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't have the rank or the cachet to formally propose a policy change. :-) Although if it ever were proposed, it would have my support, per KISS. Leviv ich 19:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Just tell the world that a draft will be prepared, have 2-3 carefully selected people prepare a combined version (put wp:nor inside of wp:ver), with the rule being to have it make no changes. Get a dozen people to say that it looks good enough and has no changes, and agree to promote the idea, then do an RFC to put the merged version in under wp:ver. A possible way around the wikipedia gridlock which prevents evolution. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Levivich, this was attempted in 2007. A clear majority of editors approved it, but not quite enough to overrule the skeptics. You can read about it at Wikipedia talk:Attribution. Since then, I believe that the only serious conversation about reviving this would have merged all of WP:V with half of NOR, and spun WP:PSTS out into its own policy. It is, of course, just a rearrangement with no actual changes, but we are a reactionary, change-averse community, and nowhere is that more true than when it comes to our core policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clue, I had no idea about all that. North8000, I'd say the draft that I would prepare is already prepared at WP:A (now that I've read it). Over 1,000 editors in that poll–wow!–and more or less evenly split about it. My favorite oppose was the last one: "Oppose, though in all honesty, I can't describe the reasons why." Ain't democracy grand. Leviv ich 18:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

If approached right I believe it could be done. I still have battle scars from being at the tip of the spear when we got rid of "not accuracy" (not truth). But if we keep all of the sacred cows (= combine with no change) and handled other items as described I think it could be done. North8000 (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The sentence in question is "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," which remains true and means that truth status is not a sufficient condition. Don't present that as simply "not accuracy". SarahSV ^(talk) 19:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem was that it implied that accuracy didn't matter. And "truth" was sort of a strawman substitute for the word accuracy, because truth has multiple common meanings, one of them (accuracy) relevant and defensible as an objective for an enclyclopedia, the other (baseless belief) not. North8000 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It didn't ever imply that. It meant exactly what it said, namely that you need a source before you can add something to Wikipedia, no matter how convinced you are that what you're adding is true: the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's old news now. And, as you described, "you need a source before you can add something to Wikipedia, no matter how convinced you are that what you're adding is true" is the main point. IMO the wording that was dropped had other harmful unintended consequences for the reasons I described, and current wording establishes and focuses on that point without the other harmful unintended consequences. North8000 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't ever meant to imply "accuracy is optional, as long as you've got an allegedly reliable source that says something stupid". It was very much meant to encompass "We don't care what your beliefs are. You might indeed have the Sole Truth about this subject, but if you don't have a source, it doesn't go in, without exception." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This might not apply to anything discussed here but gives the context of primary, secondary, reliable and unreliable. The interpretation of "likely" in likely to be challenged can get subjective. If a statement is added that can't be attributed to a reliable source and it's challenged, its not the removal that requires evidence but the re-insertion (the initial insertion should have been cited anyways). This is an example where I removed a claim that I believed to be wrong, and was unreferenced. Someone claimed Coca-Cola Life was discontinued without any reliable evidence to support it. I saw the product in store. That's good enough reason to challenge a claim without a citation. Suppose someone contests the removal. Now it's on them to find a reliable source that says it's been discontinued. What we require is verifiability, not truth (see WP:VNT ). If the editor says he was told from a friend who works with product managers, that's considered "original research". If he gets his friend to publish the statement on their blogspot or weebly, that makes it "published" but it would be considered an unreliable source and this wouldn't get someone out of the requirement to find a reliable source supporting the claim. However, if the restoring editor finds this hypothetical discontinued statement from a post by the Coca-Cola's official verified Instagram, this would be a primary source, but a reliable source for the statement that a product has been discontinued. This doesn't provide an excuse for rattling off product announcements for non-notable companies. Graywalls (talk) 09:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

In this case, Coca-Cola is absolutely authoritative, in that it determines whether its product has been discontinued or not. It is not independent of the product. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Two things. One: reverting to "status quo" is wrong, a sign of ownership behavior if done repeatedly, and generally a sign of edit warring - never "revert to status quo" only leave the status quo up. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline for reverting to a status quo over consensus. If there was a recent consensus for one version or another, that's the version to keep until there's a new consensus, not some previous arbitrary "status quo".

Two: articles must be based on reliable sources, otherwise it's WP:OR. Bright☀ 13:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The question isn't whether reliable sources are required. The question is whether a particular subset of reliable sources need to form the basis for an article.

The problem with just saying "reliable" is that every source is reliable for something. Some celebrity's tweets about their birthday party would be reliable for statements about their birthday party. But nobody really wants to base an article on their tweets, right? So – when we're talking about subjects for which there is a practical difference between independent and secondary sources (e.g., not arithmetic) – the question is whether we should be using

• "reliable sources that are also secondary" (no tweets as the primary basis for an article), or
• "reliable sources that are also independent" (no statements from celebrities about themselves as the primary basis for an article), or
• "all reliable sources that are secondary plus all the reliable sources that are independent", or
• "only those reliable sources that happen to be both independent and also secondary, but not reliable sources that are only one or the other of those things"

as the basis for the article.

And, since someone asked about it above, when you "base an article on" some sources, that means that a substantial amount of content in the article, the overall weight given to content in the article, and perhaps its overall structure, come from those sources. So if, for example, you read a source that talks about A, B, C, and D, in that order, and you decide that your article should also talk about A, B, C, and D, in that order, then you are basing the structure of your article on that source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Because this is the V policy, of course the question is what is needed for V. And unless the Wikipedian is inventing a hoax, whatever the sources are, the article will be based on them. (and FYI, borrowing someone else's structure, sometimes amounts to plagiarism.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Which of the many statements above are you disagreeing with? I can rule out some of them (e.g., "No, you're not basing an article on a source if you plagiarize the source's structure" would be illogical, so it's not that), but I can't figure out what you're disagreeing with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

@BrightR: If there was a recent consensus for one version or another ... I agree. Here is the March 2011 version that followed this discussion and that remained for almost 8 years until January 2019. Here is the January 2019 change to that language, and here is the discussion about that change. Here is the April 2019 change to that language, and here is the discussion of that change. Which version, in your opinion, is the one that has consensus? Leviv ich 18:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What of lauded self-published books?

The idea of preferring against self-published books is they are considered less reliable as sources. But what of a self-published book lauded by reviewers and/or experts in its field? Suppose a new writer self-publishes some theory or examination, and established experts think it brilliant, or the book wins a prestigious award in its field? Seems counterintuitive to bar the book then, especially when 'reputable' publishers actually do publish a lot of things of lower quality than that. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Self-published books are not barred as sources. They are simply presumed unreliable. They are only explicitly barred from use in BLPs not about the book's author. But 'presumed unreliable' implies that a self-published book could be reliable, it just has to be proved. Though I'd say that a book publishing a new theory is necessarily presenting something very original, and should not be used as a source except in an article about the book/theory/author. More for our taste, you might find, say, a self-published reference work about some subject, and find proof that well-known experts refer to it and swear by it. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. But suppose the lauded book is sought to be quoted not to present its new theory, but because it happens to present an especially well-worded yet succinct explanation of an old idea? Those can be hard to come by. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like an issue of significance rather than verifiability. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. So if a topic is unquestionably significant, shouldn’t be a problem. Suppose a man self-publishes a monograph on how to build a barn. It is well-reviewed by those who know of such things. If it includes a succinct very well stated description of how nails hold boards together, we might quote that in the article on nails. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

What of very old self-published sources?

Obviously publishing changed a lot over past centuries. A great many books published in the 18th-19th centuries would be considered self-published under modern standards. Do we treat those books differently? Hyperbolick (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Why we can't add new information from rural area

I put some new places in Nainital but it will directly delete by some people. Why not put that subject in Discussion. Vikram Singh Bisht (talk) 02:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

First, not all of your contributions were removed. Second, those of your contributions that were removed were either advertisements for your company or barely made any sense. Third, this is the page for discussing improvements or general interpretations of the verifiability policy - not to complain about editorial disputes - see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Fourth, I really think you should consider whether your English language skills are sufficient to be contributing articles to the English Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Challenge

I would like to challenge the currently last edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Change-advisory_board&oldid=899028650 but english isn't my native language and I'm no expert in the subject matter. But as far as I can see, I haven't seen/found an Edit-Challenge function in Wikipedia so far, and I'm not going to revert the page myself, knowing how touchy many Wikipedia Admins are these days.

While on that matter, I would also challenge the whole page title/lemma, but as said: at the current stage of Wikipedia I feel contribution rather discouraged than encouraged; maybe something to think about. --Alien4 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Alien4: The best way for you to contribute in this situation is to go to Talk:Change-advisory board and leave a comment there about what you think should change. It would also be okay if you also reverted the edit, as long as you also left a comment on the talk page (see WP:BRD). --Izno (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That edit was obvious vandalism, BRD is not applicable. I have already undone the edit. --Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS and WP:EDITCONSENSUS

I've seen a lot of people misinterpret WP:ONUS. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS, edits are presumed to enjoy consensus until / unless someone articulates an objection to them; this means that reverting an otherwise-unobjectionable edit (ie. one that nobody has objected to previously, via reversion or on talk) with an edit of "get consensus" or the like and no other explanation is improper. To make this more clear, I suggest appending something like this to the end of WP:ONUS: Note that consensus is presumed unless an edit has been disputed or reverted with an edit-summary explaining an objection. Outside of patient vandalism, editors are required to articulate their objections when reverting; simply citing WP:ONUS or "get consensus" isn't sufficient explanation, and that ought to be made clear here, not just on WP:EDITCONSENSUS. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

No... remember that the reversion itself constitutes an objection. The reverting editor objects to the edit and desires discussion. The correct response to that challenge is to go to the talk page and start one. Blueboar (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This is untrue. From WP:EDITCONSENSUS: All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the associated talk page. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus. Edit summaries are especially important when reverting another editor's good faith work. It's extremely important that WP:ONUS not convey to people that they can revert an edit without explanation (or by just saying "get consensus" or by citing WP:ONUS, when there are no existing objections), since doing so is against policy. At a bare minimum, WP:ONUS needs to make it clear that edits are presumed to enjoy consensus and, therefore, that you shouldn't just revert an edit on the grounds that all edits axiomatically need to establish consensus first, since that isn't true. (And the idea that "all edits must proactively establish consensus" is a common misunderstanding of WP:ONUS.) The specific thing I've seen on multiple occasions goes something like... someone makes an uncontroversial edit; another editor reverts and says "get consensus"; the first editor opens a discussion on talk asking what the issue is and the reverting editor does nothing but cite WP:ONUS and assert that the edit lacks consensus rather than articulating an objection. See eg. here for an example - people are taking WP:ONUS to mean "I don't have to explain why I removed something; you have to explain why you want it included." That isn't what ONUS means. A revert with no explanation should go to the talk page, sure (it's a clear screw-up by the person making the revert, but that's not an excuse to edit-war.) They need to provide an explanation after that, though; simply citing WP:ONUS as the reason for a revert is insufficient because consensus is presumed. --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the sentence "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" because one could just as well say "The onus to achieve consensus for omission is on those seeking to omit disputed content." Bus stop (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that the purpose of WP:ONUS is to say otherwise - ie. the default is to not include. That said, you raise an important point, which is that generally speaking ONUS doesn't reflect current policy or behavior - it is not true that the onus is always on whoever wants something included; the actual policy when there's a dispute is WP:QUO. That's separate from the point I'm concerned with here, though (my problem is people who cite WP:ONUS to remove something and never articulate any other reason why beyond 'it lacks consensus', which is a violation of WP:EDITCONSENSUS and the general requirement to explain your reverts.) I'll start a separate section for the WP:QUO issue, which is perhaps more serious because it seems like a direct contradiction between policies. --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Can you present your proposal separately on this page? It can't receive the necessary attention when mixed with the other issues in this thread. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

About reverting:

I want to revert a change that was made to a Wikipedia article!

Is the change leading toward improvement of the article? → yes → Please do not revert it. Even if the change is not perfect, it may still prove beneficial with further edits.  ↓ no  ↓ Can you explain how the change is detrimental to the article according to Wikipedia policies or guidelines? → yes → Edit the article to correct or revert the change. Explain your reasons in the edit summary and, if your edit is disputed, elaborate in the talk page.  ↓ no  ↓ You might be engaging in ownership behavior and reverting the change based on personal reasons rather than reasons pertinent to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please do not revert the edit and instead, try to parse your reasons through the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines before editing further. {{User:BrightR/Flowchart/WP:OWN}}

About status quo: status quo specifically says not to revert. There is no "revert to status quo", only revert to consensus. If there is no consnsus, don't revert. Bright☀ 07:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Bus stop, it's assumed that all material that already exists on Wikipedia has consensus, so you only need consensus to add material. If you remove material and get reverted, it's assumed the reverted version has consensus. Either way reverting because of "no consensus" or "status quo" is against policy (see flowchart). Bright☀ 08:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The point of WP:QUO in this context is that all longstanding text is assumed to enjoy consensus. Editors can disagree over how longstanding it needs to be for that to apply, but that presumption means that you always need affirmative consensus to remove longstanding text (and any sort of failure to achieve consensus, whether in an RFC or whatever, means it stays in the article.) This is longstanding practice and policy, which WP:ONUS needs to acknowledge. And that acknowledgement completely changes WP:ONUS' meaning, since it means the presumption, under current policy and practice, is not "remove anything that lacks clear consensus" but "when there is no consensus, the last stable version / status quo applies, because longstanding versions are presumed to have enjoyed consensus and the onus is therefore on anyone who wants to remove it to show a new consensus over turning that one." --Aquillion (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No that's the opposite of the point of quo. Quote: If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it. [...] until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed [...]) There is nothing in Wikipedia policy about reverting to status quo or a "long standing version"; doing that is indicative of ownership behavior. You are thinking of a different status quo essay which goes against Wikipedia policy. Bright☀ 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Some edits add off-topic material to an article, or expand sections to the point of being WP:UNDUE. If you think that WP:QUO stands in the way of removal of such material, then WP:QUO needs to be be changed. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That's out policy. WP:QUO is just an advice essay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:ONUS vs. WP:QUO

Spun off from the above discussion. WP:ONUS directly and unambiguously implies that if one editor removes longstanding material, and another editor objects, the default is that that material is removed until consensus is reached. WP:QUO directly and unambiguously implies the opposite - longstanding text remains unless there's a clear consensus to remove it, ie. when dealing with longstanding text, the default is to keep rather than to remove. I've seen frequent disagreements between these, and it contributes to edit wars by leading editors on both sides to think that policy supports putting the page in their preferred state during discussion. These need to be reconciled and either an unambiguous statement added to WP:ONUS referencing WP:QUO and indicating that longstanding text is presumed to have consensus by default; or an unambiguous statement added to WP:QUO referencing WP:ONUS. For the record, I think it's obvious to anyone who has edited for any length of time that WP:QUO is the policy that is actually followed here, and that WP:ONUS, as written, is wrong and does not reflect current policy; anyone who tries to invoke WP:ONUS to remove longstanding text during a dispute without a clear affirmative consensus to do so is going to have a bad time, ie. WP:ONUS applies only to new additions because anything that has been on the page for long enough is presumed to have consensus. But either way one of these needs to be corrected. --Aquillion (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that if this comes down to a !vote or such, my feeling would be that material that's in dispute should be removed until there's consensus to include it, because IMO it's better to not say something until we feel it's appropriate than to include material that may be inappropriate while a consensus is being built. In other words, err on the side of caution. DonIago (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Much avoidable conflict and ill will results from contradictory and incompatible process rules and common practices. We spend as much time arguing about process as discussing content, and that should not be the case. This has been a pressing need for the five years I've been around, and I've seen no progress in that time. Things need to be firmed up and simplified, and contradictions need to be eliminated; there shouldn't be much discussion about process aside from pointing inexperienced editors to the relevant PAGs.

That said, I'm with Doniago: Disputed content should require consensus, at least when an editor chooses to press the point. If editors repeatedly abuse that principle in bad faith, the community should deal with those editors rather than try to design abuse-proof process policies. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You are misreading the policy. Status quo says specifically not to revert. Onus says specifically to remove material without consensus. The answer is always keep the consensus version regardless of status quo. If you don't know what's the consensus, don't revert. Bright☀ 08:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

ONUS says to remove disputed content without consensus to include. I'm sure that's what you meant, but it's worth pointing out. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Poorly worded on my part. "No consensus" is specifically stated in policy as a bad revert reason, do not revert simply because there's no consensus. Bright☀ 08:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely, or we'd revert most additions. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

But in this hypothetical situation, we'd not revert simply because there's no consensus. We'd do it because the content will remain abundantly verifiable to the point of meeting the general notability guideline, because this existing article will still clearly be the most suitable place for it and because the objections to its inclusion will probably stay wild predictions founded on no apparent past performance. Those are three good reasons, regardless of an inconclusive RfC, and I'm not just saying that because they help our case. They help our case because they're good reasons. Of course, if there were consensus to exclude the names for a worse reason, all the propriety in the world couldn't save us. Going forward, we should only ask everyone to affirm whether they want to Keep or Delete similar widely-circulated basic information, avoiding pickles where only one option can win or lose at a time. Agree? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:11, June 11, 2019 (UTC)

What hypothetical situation are you referring to? I'm certain of one thing: None of us gets to decide what's a "good" reason to revert (assuming it's not "no consensus", as previously stated, and assuming the revert does not violate a process rule, ArbCom restriction, and so on), for reasons that should be abundantly obvious. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The Talk:Virginia Beach shooting#RfC: Should the page include the victims names? situation. I figured at least you'd remember, being the most active participant and one who suggested continuing that conversation here. I figured we were here to work toward stopping the madness, once and for all, and thought my Keep or Delete proposal was a step in the right direction (apparently not). I can't see your "abundantly obvious" reasons for thinking we can't (or shouldn't) decide when it's OK to revert. It's exactly as easy as determing a bad revert reason, just look for it specifically stated in policy. Here are seven good reasons, strictly for example. I'm not saying the censoring of basic and expected information about a subject is as "bad" as the distribution child porn, hate speech or pirated media, but WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and a few others all seem to indicate the distribution of basic and expected information is "good" for Wikipedia. So, absent consensus, that's what determines the "best version" of two possible articles, not some convoluted debate about whether QUO outranks ONUS or vice versa. At the end of the day, they both tend to suggest we arbitrarily and always pick the old or the new, and that's a bad way to decide for (what I think are) abundantly obvious reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:58, June 11, 2019 (UTC)

• The sentence "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" is a non sequitur. Policy and guidelines are often best when they don't bite off more than they can chew. I think in many instances that is one point, and no more. So my question is: what is that one point of WP:ONUS? It has a title: "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". That is its main point. In total WP:ONUS consists of three sentences. The first two relate in important ways to the title. Those two sentences read "While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." But the last sentence, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", opens up a can of worms. Everything is wrong with that sentence. WP:ONUS would be improved by simply omitting that sentence. Not only is that sentence a non sequitur, but there is no wisdom to support it. I am defining "wisdom" as "a good reason". Consensus determines everything. Whether something is included or omitted is irrelevant in light of the fact that consensus can determine that the material in question is included or omitted. WP:ONUS should address the one issue found in the title. It is an important point, and it should stand on its own. Our processes address more thorny issues and less thorny issues. And I think the most thorny issues are almost irresolvable. Our policies and guidelines should address bite-sized issues. Bus stop (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

ONUS places the consensus burden on those who wish to include disputed content. It's that simple despite attempts to complicate it. In five years I've seen it applied that way countless times and never once had I seen any editor interpret it any other way until you. Can you honestly state that you have seen it interpreted your way countless times? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—there is no wisdom to that last sentence and it is off-topic. Do you disagree with either of these points? Is there any justifiable reason (wisdom) for that final sentence? And is it on-topic? The topic is seen in the section heading—"Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". This is a very important point: Just because something is supportable by a source does not mean that it must be included in an article. This is what WP:ONUS is about. You don't tag additional points onto this policy/guideline without opening up a can of worms. Whoever wrote that last sentence into WP:ONUS made a mistake. The last sentence should simply be eliminated. Bus stop (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Look, it's quite possible the policy is in the wrong place, and should be at WP:CONSENSUS instead of WP:V. It's also quite possible the sentence was originally intended to mean one thing and has been very widely misinterpreted to mean something different. So what? The one fact that matters here is that "disputed content requires consensus to include" is a very widely accepted principle (even if not universally so, since universally accepted principles don't exist at Wikipedia). Policy derives from common practice, not vice versa, and you are free to advocate a change to policy to bring it into clearer agreement with common practice. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There is zero wisdom to that last sentence ("The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content"), not to mention that it is off-topic. Why would there be greater burden to find consensus on those adding than those removing? In truth we are in most cases not simply adding or removing. All disputants are both adding and removing, in most cases. We are discussing "versions" of articles. Any "version" during a dispute is merely a temporary version. It has not yet attained widespread approval. But there is no burden on anyone that is greater than the burden on anyone else. When an admin steps in and "protects" an article, that version enjoys no special status. It is a temporary version. Someone made a mistake when they tagged that non-sequitur sentence onto the end of WP:ONUS and it should simply be removed. Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Clearly you failed to hear what I just said. You are in effect saying that very widely accepted practice is wrong, and you can't say that by definition of how Wikipedia works. At the very least you would need a clear community consensus that very widely accepted practice is wrong, and you don't even have any support on this page at this point. Argue all you want with any others who are so inclined, but I'm not going to go around and around with you on this. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"It's also quite possible the sentence was originally intended to mean one thing and has been very widely misinterpreted to mean something different." What does that mean? Please expand on that. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

It means: It's quite possible the sentence was originally intended to mean something like what you're saying and has been very widely misinterpreted to mean what I'm saying. According to the relationship between accepted practice and policy that I stated previously, the meaning of the sentence has been effectively changed by accepted practice. I and most other editors are happy with the status quo, but if you find it unclear or misleading because of its placement and context, you can propose an improvement. What you can't do is say that widely accepted practice is wrong without a community consensus to that effect.

If you dispute my assertion that "disputed content requires consensus to include" is very widely accepted, show me a few uninvolved closes where the closer assessed "no consensus" and stated that that meant the content should be included. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—you mention how it might have been "originally intended". So, please tell me—how might it have been "originally intended"? Bus stop (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It matters not whether it was originally to mean what you're saying, that the price of jelly beans is too high, or something else. What matters is what it's widely interpreted to mean today. We could even be citing the wrong policy. The point is that widely accepted practice always trumps any written rules, although we should work harder to keep the two in agreement. If you can't see that, there is little point in continuing here. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, you won't answer the question, so I will answer it for you. It is a meaningless, throwaway sentence. It is meant to reinforce the initial assertion as found in the section heading and in the first two sentences of the section called WP:ONUS. It is not making any point about who includes and who omits material, which is not so simple anyway, as both sides are both adding and omitting material in most instances. The sentence was malformed and you are exploiting that lack of clarity for your own purposes. Bus stop (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I am exploiting nothing. Forget I ever mentioned ONUS. We go by widely accepted practice or seek a community consensus to change it. Full stop, Bus stop. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

What you have to understand is that there has to be wisdom behind any policy. It should be possible to articulate the wisdom behind any policy. Therefore I'm going to ask you a tough question: what is the wisdom behind the last sentence in WP:ONUS? Bus stop (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Disputed material requires consensus to include" is neither accepted policy nor accepted practice on Wikipedia. To demonstrate this, you only need to look at WP:RFC closures over longstanding text, or WP:AFD closures over anything, which near-universally take a "no consensus" outcome as "maintain the status quo" rather than "remove disputed." (The few exceptions are special cases, like WP:BLP, which have specific policies mandating exclusion due to the enhance risk of harm.) Therefore, the correct wording of WP:ONUS based on current policy and practice is that "disputed edits require consensus", ie. removal of longstanding content requires that you demonstrate a clear positive demonstration of consensus to remove it. If your argument is that WP:AFD and WP:RFC should always default to 'delete' when there's no consensus, you'll really need to bring that up elsewhere, but I don't think it's likely to get anywhere. If your argument is that WP:ONUS accurately reflects that practice, you're going to have to explain how, because I'm not seeing it - "no consensus means a return to status quo" is a central part of how consensus is evaluated. "No consensus means delete" is nonsense that has never been applied outside of a few specific highly-sensitive areas that require it. --Aquillion (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think we disagree. My head is in the specific case (or set of cases, actually) that brought me, InedibleHulk, and Bus stop to this discussion, to wit: addition of new content. I haven't been thinking about longstanding content, for which I and many others apply the term "de facto consensus". As long as one doesn't read "consensus" as "talk page consensus", my phrasing still works. But if policy can be made clearer, I'm all for it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• It is not "new content" that we are concerned with. We are concerned with different versions of articles. A dispute is about different versions of an article, with one group supporting one version, and another group supporting another version. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Let me be blunt. You are spouting utter nonsense. Yes, we are concerned with new content, that new content being victims' names lists which are challenged long before they have acquired de facto consensus status. But I can't say I'm surprised that you came here, were told by yet more experienced editors that you're wrong, and refused to hear them and instead concocted a fantastical argument to avoid having to admit that you've been wrong all this time. You continue to flirt with topic ban.
  To other editors, I apologize for my tone. If you had experienced the past couple of years of this editor's obtuseness, you might well be using the same tone or worse. I have rarely seen an editor so vocal and so wrong at the same time, and never one with his edit count. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Mandruss—even when there is a net addition of material to an article, there is usually some subtraction of material from an article. And even when there is a net subtraction of material, there is usually some addition of material. You are creating a problem when you frame the discussion as being about "new content". A much more enlightened framing of this discussion is between one version of an article supported by one group and another version of an article supported by another group. Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Also, belatedly, the policy that I should be citing is WP:NOCONSENSUS, which specifically says a lack of consensus defaults to last stable version outside of cases where WP:BLP requires removal. --Aquillion (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• I said previously that we might be citing the wrong policy, and I can start citing NOCONSENSUS instead of ONUS, with exactly the same effect: Until there is a consensus to include disputed new content, it stays out. Policy semantics. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Concerning WP:NOCONSENSUS, what is the likelihood that the strength of argument is equal on both sides of an RfC? I think it is highly unlikely. If one side's arguments are even slightly stronger than the other side's, the closer should close the RfC in favor of the stronger side. The occurrence of "no consensus" should be extremely rare. Anyone considering closing an RfC as "no consensus" should simply not close that RfC. And again, let me mention that we are not talking about "new content". We are talking about different versions of an article. Bus stop (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• A closer will close the way they feel they should close, and any editor is free to request a close review. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Nope—problems are to be solved. We are not having this discussion so that we can wallow in problems and let problems fester. We propose solutions—that's what we do. Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• If you want to challenge NOCONSENSUS, go do it at the talk page for NOCONSENSUS: Wikipedia talk:Consensus. That's what we do. If you want to challenge longstanding close practices, I suggest WP:VPP. We are certainly not going to change that on this page. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the ONUS sentence I agree with Bus stop that this part exceeds the scope of the main point, and with "Mandruss" that this piece of purported policy is quite possibly misplaced and/or misunderstood. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:19, June 11, 2019 (UTC)
• Keep the ONUS sentence unless it's shown that the widely-accepted principle "disputed content requires consensus to include" is adequately contained in some other policy, or until that's made so. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—it should not be found in other policy. The wording shouldn't be anywhere. It misrepresents reality. Even when there is a net addition, there is usually some subtraction. And even when there is a net subtraction, there is usually some addition. There need not be a greater burden to achieve consensus on either side. Importantly, any version that is up while consensus is being hammered out, is a temporary version. Bus stop (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I asked you to supply us with some "wisdom" behind the sentence that we are discussing. You haven't responded. There is no wisdom behind it. Policy always is defensible. Policy always is supported by a rationale. Why should The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion be on those seeking to include disputed content? Is that preferable for instance to a sentence reading The onus to achieve consensus for omission is on those seeking to omit disputed content? Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Anybody down for The onus to achieve consensus is on those seeking it? It'd stay open to interpretation and largely hollow, but briefer and neutral. A bit more logical, too, since those are the only type of people who consistently speak at RfCs. Why shouldn't it be their unified cross to bear against only those few seeking chaos, division and uncertainty? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, June 11, 2019 (UTC)

Bus Stop I think you are grievously misreading the policy. Please refer to the previous discussion where the current phrasing of the policy achieved consensus. Bright☀ 17:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• You can often learn a lot about intent by looking through archives... The sentence in question was first added on 29 May, 2014 - with this edit. Looking through the archives of talk page discussions from that time (see: Archive 62)... I don't find any discussion of the addition. However, we were in the middle of an extensive discussion about WP:BURDEN (a similar concept... but one that is more limited in scope). Perhaps more enlightening... prior to that discussion, the short-cut "WP:ONUS" pointed to the same section as WP:BURDEN. They were essentially two words for the same concept. The edit of 29 May broke ONUS and BURDEN apart, and made them two separate concepts. The next talk page mention of "ONUS" occurs on 29 September, 2015 ... almost a year later... in the context of discussing relevance (see archive 63). It seems to be accepted as policy at that time. Blueboar (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think that it is best as-is. Despite that fact that prescriptive "what should happen" wording is problematic due to the large amount of variables and factors. First, most of the new suggestions are adding more prescriptive material which would expand that problem. Just like most things in the fuzzy Wikipedia system, the current wording can't be taken categorically or too broadly. And the distinction between contesting new material vs. contesting long-standing material is certainly an influencing factor. I think that the context and preface wording is important. Which is that it largely addresses the common implicit or explicit argument that meeting wp:ver is a force or mandate for inclusion rather than just one of the requirements for inclusion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) North8000 (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is concerned with whether or not material can be supported by a source. But there is spillover from that which can be supported by a source to that which is supported by a source but nevertheless is unwanted. Material that is supported by a source but is nevertheless unwanted is addressed in WP:ONUS. The upshot of WP:ONUS is that material can still be rejected even though it is sourced. The upshot is not that the burden for achieving consensus is on those wishing to add content. Somebody added that language. But it is illogical. What would be the wisdom behind placing the burden for achieving consensus on those adding content—assuming it is supported by good sources? If there is no wisdom to it, there is no reason for keeping that language.

WP:ONUS is about differences of editorial opinion. WP:BURDEN is more objective. It is not about opinions. It is about the availability of support for material or assertions in sources. That is either present or absent. The burden is very clear: the burden for providing support in sources is on those adding content. It is a different situation in WP:ONUS. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether material warrants inclusion. RfCs can resolve this. But there is no special burden on people who happen to be the ones who want to add material.

At WP:ONUS there is simply a difference of opinion between which version of the article is the "right" version. Arguments are presented in an RfC and a closer evaluates the strengths of the respective arguments. They should not close as "no-consensus" unless both sides have equally strong arguments. I think that is very unlikely. Even if one side's arguments are only slightly stronger—that side should be awarded their version of the article. Bus stop (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

But there is no special burden on people who happen to be the ones who want to add material. There is "no special burden" until the added material is challenged. At that point there is the special burden of achieving a consensus to include the material. As has been explained to you more times than I can count, here and elsewhere. But keep repeating the falsehood enough times, using articulate language resembling that used by people who know what they are talking about, and maybe it will magically become true by sheer force of will.

They should not close as "no-consensus" unless both sides have equally strong arguments. And yet they do, all the time, and AFAIK nobody has a problem with it except you. If you wish to propose a radical change to the way Wikipedia works, take it to VPP and stop cluttering this page with repetitive out-of-venue comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep the ONUS sentence—this is important in many cases, such as those involving WP:BLPs or political articles. Of course, deleting without a rationale is not protected by ONUS—it applies only when deleting or reverting with a rationale. The default should be to keep such disputed material out of the article until a consensus forms to include it—keeping in disputed content is potentially far more damaging than keeping it out. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss—WP:BURDEN is different in significant ways from WP:ONUS. They are related but they are different. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." This is perfectly understandable. There is wisdom behind it. And it is part of WP:BURDEN. Now let us look at WP:ONUS, specifically its final sentence. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." There is no justification for that. That is because there is no objective need for a special burden to be placed on those "seeking to include disputed content." This is merely an editorial dispute. This does not involve the need for support in a reliable source because both sides in a dispute agree that the material is reliably sourced. WP:ONUS is very different from WP:BURDEN. There is a "burden" in WP:BURDEN. There isn't a "burden" in WP:ONUS. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no justification for that.—the justification is that it is disputed (assuming a rationale for the dispute is provided).

there is no objective need for a special burden to be placed on those "seeking to include disputed content."—this would be a boon for fringe content and POV-pushers. The default cannot be to maintain disputed content. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—we have admins for a reason. If editors can't work out differences of opinion, articles get "protected", until such time as editors decide on a consensus-supported version. Nothing that is said in policy can avert an edit war. We are expected to be responsible and if that proves impossible someone is expected to summon an admin. Bus stop (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't see what aspect of your comment addresses what I wrote. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the third and final sentence of WP:ONUS unless anyone can tell me the wisdom behind that sentence. It is entirely extraneous. The person who wrote it was probably thinking that it sounded like it belonged because a similar sentence is found in WP:BURDEN. But mere editorial disputes should not place special "burdens" on either side. Such disputes are ideally decided on the strengths of each side's arguments. Adding new material under WP:BURDEN matters because we do not allow inclusion of material that is un-sourced. But WP:ONUS is about disagreement over whether sourced material should be included. This is merely a matter of opinion. But there can be stronger and less strong arguments. These arguments determine which of two versions of an article should be allowed to stand.

  Also, the last sentence is a bombshell. It is an overwhelming surprise. The section heading reads Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. The first and second sentences read "While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted or presented instead in a different article." And then comes the bombshell, that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." The last sentence is a non sequitur vis-à-vis that which precedes it. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep the ONUS sentence The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This is absolutely required. Otherwise, a POV-pusher could ride roughshod over consensus and add WP:FRINGE material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue is about a change being introduced, not necessarily inclusion, it can also be removal, depending on what constitutes longstanding text. But regarding Wikipedia:Consensus#No_consensus — I reiterate that this is what a closing of discussion defaults to (to the longstanding text) whenever there is agreement against a proposal or when there is no agreement at all. El_C 06:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you happen to know of a policy or guideline that addresses whether an introduced change including text to a specific section of a regularly occuring sort of article, in a format identical to that of longstanding text in previously occuring sorts constitutes longstanding text? Or one that says each specific instance of the same sort of longstanding text can (or must) be disputed and accepted every single time before it's included again? If so, perhaps we should all hop over to that talk page. If not, thanks for clarifying as much as you already have. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:58, June 12, 2019 (UTC)

The results of exhaustive and exhausting discussions in community venues have consistently been: Handle on a case-by-case basis. If the community saw things like you describe, the results would have been different. And of course you're free to take another shot at it at VPP.

Not the question you asked, nor the person you asked, but relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)