Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 75

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

Add "of information" to ONUS

1. I added "of information" to the last sentence of ONUS, explaining "clarify that ONUS relates to information (and not, for example, grammar)." The result was:

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion of information is on those seeking to include disputed content.

2. Another editor revered with an explanation of "compact."

3. A third editor restored my change, saying "The original wording "inclusion of information" is better. Changing to "its inclusion" causes ambiguity since there is more than one nearby noun."

4. There were some intervening edits - none of which spoke to the substance of the edit summaries at 1 and 3 above - that ended up back at my change (1. above).

5. The reverting editor (2. above) reverted again, saying "Clearly the change to longstanding status quo has destabilized this little sentence. Let's just proceed on talk. I really doubt there was a problem with the longstanding. If there had been, it surely would have come up in the monumental go-rounds on the talk page." This, too, is not a substantive objection to the change. See

WP:DRNC

.

Is there any substantive objection to adding "of information" for the ''reasons'' given at 1 and 3 above? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

We as editors are naturally concerned with exact phrasing, including tone, punctuation, and grammar. Moreover, we often find the compromise that reaches consensus in precise wordsmithing, and sentence and paragraph construction, and should not degrade or disregard that enterprise. We are not just in the work of blurting out information, the work is as much about providing information in a precise, certain, and concrete way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Better to focus on "content" not "information" Alanscottwalker has brilliantly summarized the operational importance of that distinction. SPECIFICO talk 20:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Move "disputed content" to earlier in the last sentence of ONUS

So you'd both be okay with a switch to: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion of disputed content is on those seeking to include it"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure about that… ”Content” could refer to an entire article, and that isn’t what ONUS is discussing. ONUS is focused on disputes over smaller bits of verifiable but problematic material… and whether that material should be included in or omitted from a specific article. Blueboar (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a topic for another day (and one I'd love to discuss). But, for now, I'm just asking about rearranging the sentence in a way that Alanscottwalker and SPECIFICO may find acceptable. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I really think this is not the part of the section that needed clarification. The problem is that this simple section is just trying to quash unsubstantiated claims of WEIGHT based solely and merely on the ground that the content is Verified. And that is a problem, because we have long had editors go off into unrelated tangents about consensus and longstanding and status quo and other unrelated issues. I don't think we should mess with the part that's more or less OK lest we introduce unanticipated problems like the NOCON tangent and other unforseen irrelevancies. SPECIFICO talk 21:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that the section tries to cover two distinct issues in one paragraph. First there is NOTGUARANTEED … which is merely a cautionary statement to tell editors that there is more to inclusion/omission than JUST Verifiability.

Then there is ONUS, which talks about consensus when there is a dispute over inclusion/omission.

Perhaps they should be separated (Even if only by a paragraph break)? Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but a religion has arisen around this confusion and it's now ~1000 AD into that mess so we can't go back and disrupt the origin story. Folks would just continue the same argument even after the whole section is erased. I think the second part was just anticipating the obstinate refusal of half the editors' tendency to ignore the fist part. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Right that's a problem. But, for now, I'd appreciate your thoughts on my proposed compromise of moving "disputed content" to earlier in the sentence. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I favor no change. Let sleeping dogs lie. SPECIFICO talk 23:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Why do you favor no change? What objection - other than it isn't the status quo - do you have to "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion of disputed content is on those seeking to include it"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's the dogs. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put you down as "has no non-frivolous objection." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Or, you could just stop asking me the same question over and over and over and note the reason I'd already given at least 3 times above. I don't see a line of editors at the door waiting to tell you how much they like your proposal. SPECIFICO talk 10:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Edits and objections to edits must be supported by substantive "

not a valid reason no matter how many times you repeat it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk

) 15:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@User:Alanscottwalker, as a compromise I propose above changing the ONUS sentence to "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion of disputed content is on those seeking to include it" (Moving "disputed content" to earlier in the sentence.) Would that be acceptable to you? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Why change it at all, did someone complain they couldn't understand it? Selfstudier (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am complaining that the subject of the sentence ("disputed content") doesn't appear until the end of the sentence. This is a very minor change that improves readability. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It was OK before but anyway, looks like we are going to have another go at fixing the whole thing as opposed to tweaking. A paragraph with the word information in it 4 times (and nearly 5 times) has gotta be wrong, lol. Selfstudier (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

"It was okay before" is not the same as "your proposal doesn't improve it because ..." And I have little doubt that a discussion to fix the whole thing will ultimately fail. I just want to make this small change to make a small improvement. Do you have any reason to believe that it won't accomplish that goal? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I replied to this earlier but for some unknown reason @

Fram: decided to delete it. Consult the history if you want to see what I wrote. Selfstudier (talk

) 09:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, Go Fish, what a fun game. I found the revert here. User talk:Fram was clearly out of line. I've restored your post below. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Trouble with the mobile, it was not intentional. Selfstudier (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but once they knew they had made an error they should have fixed the damage. (I look forward to your responses to my replies to your restored post (see below).) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"Not an improvement" is a standard reason for objecting/reverting. As for failing, I see that it already has so no more tweaking either, seems an RFC will be necessary to make any change. Selfstudier (talk) 09:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: I look forward to your replies to my July 23 posts (below). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but it is an improvement. I checked both versions at a readability calculator. The current version has a score of 44.97. Moving "disputed content" to earlier in the sentence raises that to 50.24. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The proposed change just reorganizes the sentence - it does not change the meaning in any way. I fail to see how an RFC that hasn't started prevents us from making this small readability improvement in the interim. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

If it makes no substantial difference and there are currently bigger fish to fry, might as well just leave it be, no? Selfstudier (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

No, because (1) it makes a significant difference (increasing readability by more than 10%) and (2) frying the small fish does not prevent us from simultaneously frying the big fish. And isn't that what Wikipedia is all about - making improvements when and where you can? Compare Perfect is the enemy of good. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to say, it makes no difference to me in either version, I go by comprehension not "readability" according to some criteria Idk or care about. If that's such a great thing, then WP can run it on the entire encyclopedia and we need not worry about it for every little edit. I haven't reverted your edit anyway, ask other editors to agree with you, I'm sticking with fish frying ftb. Selfstudier (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

What I hear you saying now is "while I still don't see the point of making this minor change, I do not oppose it." That is good enough for me. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Butwhatdoiknow: I'm not sure those numbers are reporting what you think. The lower the overall number, the more readable the prose is. Each individual score spit out by each formula represents the "number of years of education" required by an individual to easily understand it. So it would seem that you would want lower numbers, not higher, to make your case. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, you made me look. The score for the current sentence is 44.97. For my proposal it's 50.24. That can't be a reference to years of education. So I tried "the cat is red" and got a score of 118.18. Then I tried "the cat is red and likes peanut butter and jelly" and got a score of 78.25. Conclusion: the numbers are reporting what I think and moving "contested matter" to earlier in the sentence would improve readability. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you try "The cat is peanut and Red likes jelly" ? How does that score? SPECIFICO talk 19:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I didn't dig deep enough. At first glance, I thought the overall "Flesch Reading Ease" score was a simple sum of the individual index scores (where lower scores matter, because they represent education years), but a closer look reveals that's not the case. Disregard! --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Red and cat jelly peanut is the like" scores 94.37. ""Jump stain log mole" scores 120. Artificial, no intelligence. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The website tests readability, not coherence. Are you suggesting that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion of disputed content is on those seeking to include it" is nonsense? If not, what is your point? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It was an experiment. I concluded that the index is nonsense, or at least not helpful to our efforts here. SPECIFICO talk 21:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We have an article about that: Flesch–Kincaid readability tests#Flesch reading ease

@SPECIFICO, your earlier nonsense sentence produces these stats:

• Gunning Fog index: 3.20 (years of formal education)
• Coleman Liau index: 2.54 (US grade level)
• Flesch Kincaid Grade level: 3.76 (US grade level)
• ARI (Automated Readability Index): 0.23
• SMOG: 3.00
• Flesch Reading Ease: 82.39

Note that some tests require a minimum of 100 words, and others produce consistent results only when given very long passages. None check for grammar, sense, or background knowledge (e.g., whether adults know what a Security deposit is, even though those are "difficult" words).

For comparison, Colorless green ideas sleep furiously produces these numbers: GFI 18, CL 17, FK grade12, ARI 12, SMOG 11, and Flesch Reading Ease 15.64.

@Butwhatdoiknow, the difference of FRE 45 vs 50 is not really significant. Also, you might be interested in https://hemingwayapp.com/ as it does more than just look at readability numbers (e.g., passive voice and overuse of adverbs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Two questions: (1) Why is 10% "not really significant"? (2) Even if the proposed change would only be a 1% improvement, why not make it if it is an improvement? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Because it's not really 10%. A 10% change in the FRE number does not represent a 10% change in the actual effort needed to understand the text. All that's happened here is that you shortened the sentence by two words ("better" FRE), while slightly increasing the average number of detectable syllables per word ("worse" FRE). Those are the only two things that FRE cares about. You could alphabetize the words in the sentence and get the same FRE score. FRE believes that "I should go" and "I ought to leave" are almost identical in reading difficulty, even though the first has simpler, high-frequency words that a beginning reader can manage, and the second doesn't (unusual sound for ou, silent

vowel digraph

in ea, and a silent e).

If you are interested in using readability scores, then I recommend that you start with https://www.ahrq.gov/talkingquality/resources/writing/tip6.html Please note that, within the literature on readability scores, this is what's considered a supportive viewpoint. If you want to see a more typical viewpoint, then https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2019/07/readability-formulas-7-reasons-to-avoid-them-and-what-to-do-instead.php has a good, reality-based summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

My proposal moves the subject of the sentence earlier in the text. What test do you recommend we use to determine whether that is an improvement or not? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I recommend a form of Usability testing, namely that you ask editors on this page which option, if either, is clearer to them. It appears that you have done this and that nobody thinks that it is a material improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think would be a material improvement. So that's one. And no one is saying it would make the sentence worse. So, is there any reason other than status quo bias to not make the change? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing: I look forward to your reply. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Status quo bias is frequently considered a sufficient reason to avoid non-substantive changes to the wording of a policy. Some part of the community seems to be happy when the wording of policies is not messed with merely for minor gains in clarity.

Another reason you should consider is whether this is "the hill you want to die on". We collectively believe that the benefit is likely minimal but positive (or at least not negative), but continuing to push for the change could damage your relationship with other editors. Is this minor change worth the risk that your future proposals could be met with a certain amount of "Oh, him again – he can't take a hint, he can't read the room, his proposals are always so painful"?

A third reason is that this change is a bit of "rearranging the deck chairs": Why bother copyediting it now, when North's considering an RFC that might result in it being removed completely?

As usual, note that whenever I give you a list of reasons, it is not a complete or exhaustive list of reasons (unless so labeled). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

No need for a change. Moxy- 22:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you see any harm arising from the change? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite entire ONUS section discussion

If you look at the context of the paragraph that onus is in, it looks like a first attempt of putting what should have actually been in there which is "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion." And then wikilawyers mis-applied it elsewhere. And the fuzzy Wikipedian system did it's best to incorporate it, including it's otherwise-conflicts with wp:consensus), in the way that I described it previously. We should just replace onus with that and solve this whole big complicated mess (plus other problems) with one fell swoop. North8000 (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW, "Verifiability is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion." that is not a change, it is a summary of of current policy and reality. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Deal.Selfstudier (talk) 14:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would favor a complete rewrite. The current version tends to derail disputes into arguments over process rather than attempts to reach consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, if it must be tweaked, how about

While all article content must be verifiable, not all verifiable information should be included. Content that is

WP:UNDUE does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those who seek to include disputed content.

SPECIFICO talk

14:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The second and third sentences are implied or follow from the first. So it's just that last one, which I'd say is pretty much how consensus works anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes the last sentence really could be omitted. That would also get the word "consensus" out of the way. Everything's done by consensus so nothing new there. That would also address North's objection below. This section is really just a pointer from V to NPOV, saying content needs both, and not just V. SPECIFICO talk 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Shall I strike the ONUS sentence? That would be funny. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

That makes the main problems (confusion and wikilawyering mis-use) even worse, including now entangling 3 policies instead of two. North8000 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Better version

Per the discussion below, the last sentence adds no meaning beyond sitewide editing policy and protocols. Hence, new proposal:

While all article content must be verifiable, not all verifiable information should be included. Content that is

WP:UNDUE does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article.

SPECIFICO talk

• In February of 2013, it was moved to its own sub-section, and expanded. At that point it just said that inclusion/omission was determined by consensus (no onus).
  • No. As I detailed above, it was not moved from the lead to its own sub-section. It had been removed from the lead, as there was no consensus for keeping it there. Rather as a result of the discussion Irrelevant or Trivial information can be omitted, even if Verifiable, this new section was added 13–14 February 2013 over a series of edits. The final version didn't mention the reason the section was added – for omitting irrelevant or trivial, albeit verifiable, information.
  • This new section remained unchanged between 20:49, 14 February 2013 and 01:32, 14 May 2014.
  • With his edits of 15:12, 29 May 2014 and 15:22, 29 May 2014, with misleading edit summaries "lost in trsnalsation" and "sharpen redirect", JzG reinstated his WP:ONUS text and shortcut, which had previously been rejected by the community multiple times.
  • This disingenuously bold addition was reverted at 15:57, 29 May 2014 with edit summary Rm needless repetition. This is already well-covered under "burden".
  • JzG reverted at 20:34, 29 May 2014 with edit summary "Srsly, it's not., Rewording over the years has essentially obscured this important point. Burden supports inclusion of anything verifiable, even against consensus." again framing this "important point" as "essentially obscured" rather than rejected due to lack of consensus.
  • then
    WP:BRD
    ; please discuss at Talk
  • No evidence of talk about this at the time
  • At 20:35, 13 August 2014 JzG again re-instated his rejected edit, with edit summary "Anything else is a POV-pusher's charter." At the time the redirect WP:ONUS was up for discussion because it was "Not mentioned at target article.". JzG made no mention of that discussion in his edit summary, nor did he participate in it.

Have I met the burden/onus yet of demonstrating that there has been NO CONSENSUS established for the repeatedly boldly added text "The onus is on those seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion."? This section was added because of concerns about irrelevant or trivial information. A fan adding irrelevant trivia about one of their favorite topics is "POV pushing"? – wbm1058 (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems possible that any consensus is implicit/silent rather than active, certainly this sequence should be considered in the upcoming RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Wikipedia:Silence and consensus § Scope of application says "Apply the rule of silence and consensus only when a weak consensus would suffice. Silence and consensus does not apply when either a strong consensus or a mandatory discussion is required." Should only a weak consensus be suffice for the content of policy pages? I think not; WP:ONUS should redirect to a user essay until consensus for it as a policy is demonstrated. Consider the essay Wikipedia:Silence does not imply consent when drafting new policies. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Editing policy (

WP:EPTALK) says "Bold editing does not excuse... edits designed to create a fait accompli, where actions are justified by the fact they have already been carried out." I think that's the sort of policy editing I've documented above. – wbm1058 (talk

) 13:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ultimately, it does not matter whether ONUS had consensus (back then)… what matters is whether it has consensus NOW. Remember that “consensus can change”. The RFC will establish what the current consensus is, and we can then act accordingly. Blueboar (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  We can't assume that any RfC will establish a consensus; it could result in NO CONSENSUS. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  It has been sitting there for some time so while theoretically we can invoke ONUS (lol) and say it has to go out, it's been there this long, might as well wait for the RFC, see what happens with that first. Selfstudier (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

An editor made the following change:

Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be

fixed, tagged

, or removed.

The edit summary says "not equivalent alternatives." I agree that, for example, fixing is better than removing. But I wonder: Do we have an "alternatives must be equivalent" rule? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC) (Bolding added. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC))

Whether to add alternatives to "remove"

To my mind, the question of whether to mention the alternatives depends on what we intend when we use the word “may”… are we warning editors that unsourced information might be removed, or are we giving editors permission to remove? If the former, then there is no need to mention the alternatives. If the latter, then mentioning alternatives is helpful. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Given this statement follows the line of things that require cites (quotes. Contentious material), this line shouldn't use "may" but "should". But to that end we should say "should be removed unless proper sourcing can be cited inline". Masem (t) 13:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Best practice for material that might be right is to tag cn and if one not forthcoming in a reasonable time, remove. If material is thought to be crap/wrong, remove it without the cn step. Fixing is not compulsory, nor should it be. (I'm an AI editor so every statement requires a cite). Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, for this specific part of policy, it 7s clearly in reference to material that must be cited, like quotes. This is where fixing is compulsory, but whether that is removing the uncited material or adding the right ref is the question. Tagging an unsourved quote with a cn tag is not an appropriate fix. Masem (t) 13:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No it clearly is not. The whole paragraph is about all material on Wikipedia. The only part about anything that should be removed is the last sentence. Huggums537 (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, I do see how the thing is sort of stuck in between the last part about removing contentious BLP, and some advice above it saying quotes and potentially challenged material need cites, but then there would be no point for the guidance to say anything about potentially challenged material if it was going to just tell us it "should" be removed anyway. I think material that is "likely to be challenged" is not required to have a cite like quotes are unless it actually gets challenged so the guidance kind of goofed up by lumping these two together since quotes are required to have something done about about them as you say. I just wanted to point out that it isn't clearly all about material that must be cited. Huggums537 (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe it was giving guidance over both "potentially challenged material" and "should be removed" because those are two common scenarios. And material that is "likely to be challenged" is actually to most in need of a cite. Not sure what doesn't need a cite; the paragraph clearly states that all material must be verifiable. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

"should be removed unless proper sourcing can be cited inline" looks like a good start to me. Maybe put in a link to

WP:PRESERVE. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk

) 16:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

This is not true.

When you encounter something that is required to have an inline citation, you have many options, including:

• remove it
• cite it
• change it (to something that doesn't require an inline citation)
• tag it
• ask for help
• do nothing

It is not true that it should be removed; it is not always even true that you (personally and individually) "should" do anything at all. You might, for example, leave unsourced material alone because you're sending the whole page off for deletion.

It is especially not a good idea to write that it "should be removed unless proper sourcing can be cited inline", because we will end up with disputes: "Why are you so mad at me? WP:V says I ought to remove absolutely everything that's unsourced unless I personally can cite a proper source, and I just don't have the time to find sources for anything and my dad won't pay $39 per journal article, so I actually can't cite any of this.

Wikipedia:Use common sense

isn't a policy, and policies always outrank using your brain, so I'm mass-blanking everything in sight."

@Blueboar, I'm not sure whether this sentence is meant to provide warning to the lazy editors or permission to the article-blankers, but a statement of permission to the latter group would also have the effect of warning the former group. I kind of agree with @Altanner1991, though: BURDEN already says "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source", so it's not clear to me that we actually need to repeat that rule ("Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed") in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

"May" is ambiguous, and so we have to assume either interpretation, because readers cannot be expected to know otherwise. So, at this point, the message has included the possibility of simply removing material. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Another question is: who are we addressing - an editor wishing to include material, or an editor following up on material that has already been added? If the former, we want to stress citing the source when the material is added. No need to mention alternatives. If the latter, then we want to stress FIXING… and there are multiple ways to do that, including adding a citation yourself, tagging (so someone else will add a citation), or removal. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems clear that both types of editors are being addressed since all material on Wikipedia is mentioned including editors who wish to add stuff that's "likely to be challenged" as well as material that is clearly a contentious BLP violation, and has already been included, but should be removed. Both are covered in the paragraph. Since both are covered, we want to stress fixing for the benefit of those it applies to. Huggums537 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I agree with @Blueboar in that it would be beneficial to cater to both new material and old/uncited material, because these two different scenarios might demand slightly different instructional wording, to avoid confusion. But @Huggums537 does bring up the good point of the fact that both views are perhaps sufficiently already in the introduction. Altanner1991 (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I should note that Zero0000 (talk · contribs) had raised in the prior discussion: the material can be fixed, tagged, or raised on the talk page. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I would remove Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. because it is too overbearing to resummarize basic Wikipedia principles in that sentence's location in the article, unless others think we have been crystallizing Wikipedia policies enough to do that. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

If material needs citation, yes, it can be removed. I oppose de-emphasizing this. That someone can simply add a citation is obvious and would be absurd to repeat. And "tagging" shouldn't be emphasized. I've seen far too many erroneous claims stick around for years that someone tagged, but nonetheless stuck around and was not cited. People need to know be directly told that bad unsourced text can be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the basis for your argument that the option to remove is less obvious than the option to fix? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Might or might not be, depends the editor and why they are there. As whatamIdoing said, lots of possibilities in theory. Selfstudier (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say the responsibility of editors in their edits speaks to the quality of their edits, and that if material isn't cited, it probably wasn't the best quality work. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe @Crossroads argued that the option to remove is more obvious than the option to tag/fix. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that option is the most ideal. I was speaking to the Wikipedia "crowd"with inexperienced editors in mind, but I, too, am very strict about reliable sources. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC); edited 20:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I actually prefer that options for how to deal with uncited information be as broad as possible. I imagine someone is in this situation:

"I have come across this statement that does not have a citation. What is the correct way to handle this?"

If all we advise such a user to do is "you may remove it", it gives them no other options. If we say "Here's a list of things you may do" then it allows the user some flexibility and I find it is also better, when there actually are a multitude of ways to act, that we present those options and not narrow our advice. Certainly, removal is an option, but it does not need to be the only option we present; nor should it necessarily even be the best option, nuance needs to be applied in every case, and when all we say is "you may remove it..." we aren't taking that nuance into account. --Jayron32 16:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

And how would that change the wording on the policy page? Altanner1991 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I would make it say exactly what it said above: "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be fixed, tagged, or removed." That is sufficient. --Jayron32 13:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was my suggestion but Crossroads presented I think the more ideal option: we don't want to encourage uncited material. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the simple suggestion of Jayron32. Huggums537 (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, the act of "tagging" has become overly broad for unsourced material to linger for years. It's like a sorry loophole! (pardon my British)

WP:Lede: intro should say the same as (and not contradict with) the body of the article. Altanner1991 (talk

) 00:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, @Jayron32 and others have made the same suggestions and I agree, however I think that talk pages should also be included as an option, per an earlier suggestion from @Zero0000. Altanner1991 (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Point to

WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM etc Selfstudier (talk

) 16:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course. Altanner1991 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that the policy already contains an entire section outlining alternatives to simple removal. Are we focusing on individual trees instead of the forest? Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe. Perhaps the question we should ask is whether the second paragraph of the policy's lead should contain:

  1. an incomplete statement about what "may" happen to unsourced text;
  2. a (reasonably) complete statement about what "may" happen to unsourced text; or
  3. nothing in this specific paragraph about what "may" happen to unsourced text, because (a) it's explained in detail in the first section and (b) we should move straight on to the point removing contentious BLP matter.

  IMO all of these are reasonable choices, and it's just a matter of picking one. I currently prefer #3 myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  I see nothing wrong with a short, and simple summary statement about options for what may happen with unsourced text. If it is covered elsewhere, then that would only reinforce it, and the consequence of not making the statement is potential conflicts with what is covered elsewhere. Huggums537 (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would like to throw my support for all of the above suggestions. (Changing my position given what good ideas you have said here. Essentially,

  WP:Lede would entail not having the contradiction, as you call it.) Of note: ""may" be removed" is unfortunately an ambiguous wording, as it could mean "required", or "potentially". This is especially of issue if no alternatives to removal are shown in the introductory paragraphs. Altanner1991 (talk

  ) 23:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC); edited 00:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you think that "may be removed" might indicate that removal is "required".

  If someone says "I may go to the store tomorrow", do you think they are required to do so? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Required" as in "essentially expected". Altanner1991 (talk) 05:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Does "essentially expected" mean "you shouldn't be surprised if it happens"? I would agree with that.

  If you interpret it as "you should be surprised if it doesn't happen promptly", then I would not agree with that. Perhaps 30% of the English Wikipedia's sentences do not have any inline citations. I think it's been more or less stable for about five years. If you are "essentially expecting" the indiscriminate blanking of 30% of article content, you will be disappointed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Indiscriminate blanking? No, but future-forward tightening of policy? Absolutely. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Let's think logically and try to analyse possible actions (listed above): "remove it", "cite it", "change it to something that doesn't require an inline citation", "tag it", "ask for help", and "do nothing".

• Do nothing. By doing that, you abstain from any action, i.e. you are acting not as an editor, but as an ordinary reader. The policy that we are discussing does not regulate reader's behaviour. Therefore, this "alternative" does not belong to this list.
• Ask for help. IMO, the difference between that option and tagging the statement is only in the amount of users to whom you are addressing. That does not change the fact that you ask for help from others in both cases. And, what is more important, by asking for help of by tagging the statement you just initiate the process that may have two outcomes: the issue shall be fixed by adding a reference, or the unreferenced statement shall be removed. Therefore, asking/tagging is not a true alternative to removal.
• change it to something that doesn't require an inline citation in other words, by doing that, we remove a non-obvious information that requires an inline citation. That is tantamount to the next option, namely
• remove it. Indeed, if some sentence combines some totally obvious information and some information that requires an inline citation, one may remove it completely, or rephrase it in such a way that only obvious information remained in it. Therefore, I see not much difference between "rephrase" and "remove".
• cite it - no comments are needed to this option.

Now, when we take a look at the proposed list of the actions again, and combine doppelgangers together, we have:

• Ask for help either by posting information on some talk page or by tagging the statement, which gives a start to a process that may have two different outcomes: (i) a reference is added, and the content stays, or (ii) no reference is provided in a reasonable time, and the statement goes.
• Remove an unsourced statement.
• Fix it by adding a necessary reference.

I think it is clear from my analysis that "tag" and similar options are just temporary, and they are not equivalent to removal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

So we add "Fix It" but not "Tag It"? I'm good with that. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I am against being too prescriptive, in general uncited material that needs a cite either has to get one or be removed. In other words, it may be removed. Selfstudier (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And it may also get fixed (i.e., "get one"). Why state only one of the two alternatives? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

After the words "Instead of removing content from an article, consider:",

WP:PRESERVE already lists a bunch of possible alternatives, just point to that. May be removed, here at V, is simply reinforcing the need for citations (verifiability). Selfstudier (talk

) 15:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Still not clear to me why the need for citations can't be reinforced at V by listing both alternatives. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course you are entitled to your view, there are not just two alternatives and in my view more to do with

WP:EDITING than with verifiability. Selfstudier (talk

) 22:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If some user believes that some statement must be supported by an inline citation, and the reference is missing, there are three ultimate outcomes:

• Somebody adds the missing reference, e.g., instead of

"The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR), with which they argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics was incomplete."

we get:

"The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR), with which they argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics was incomplete.^[1]"

• Somebody removes the unsourced statement (which may include tagging as a temporary measure), so, instead of:

"The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR), and, independently, by Lev Landau, with which they argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics was incomplete.^[1]"

we get:

"::"The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR), and, independently, by Lev Landau,^{[citation needed]} with which they argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics was incomplete.^[1]"

and then:

"The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox (EPR paradox) is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (EPR), with which they argued that the description of physical reality provided by quantum mechanics was incomplete.^[1]"

• Users achieve a consensus that no refrence is needed (for example, because the statement is too obvious), so instead of

"London is a capital of Great Britain^{[citation needed]}"

we get:

"London is a capital of Great Britain"

IMO, that is an exhaustive list of possible outcomes. Tagging is just a provisional measure. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

So, when consensus says a citation is required, you're good with the alternatives being "fix it" and "remove it"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Repeating what has been already said once doesn't improve the case. Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The sentence in question appears in the second paragraph of the lede. Where above that does V suggest "fix" as an alternative? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I would say, unless consensus says no citation is required, any statement that was tagged (or challenged in some other way) should be either removed or supplemented with a reference. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The question we are discussing in this section is whether to remove or change "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." I gather you don't want to add "tag" to that sentence, but what about adding "fix"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I don't find that your reply (below at 15:32, 31 August 2022) clearly answers my question. Whether it's "may" or "must," should we add "cite" as an alternative to "remove"? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

See my comment in the next subsection. I prefer "must (not "may") be removed if the problem cannot be fixed in a reasonable time". If we see that some unreferenced statement needs a reference, we should try to find it, but if our good faith efforts are unsuccessful, this statement must be removed. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

We can't use must in this context because it is incompatible with our

WP:VOLUNTEER

status. Nobody can require you to add sources or blank content.

For example, World War II#Start and end dates contains this uncited sentence: "Others follow the British historian A. J. P. Taylor, who held that the Sino-Japanese War and war in Europe and its colonies occurred simultaneously, and the two wars became World War II in 1941." That's the kind of thing we would normally expect to find an inline citation after.

How would you apply your preferred rule to that sentence? There's one page view every few seconds. That's thousands of potential editors each day. Which one of them are we going to blame for "violating" your rule that they "must" remove or fix it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "the statement must be removed" has somewhat different meaning than the phrase "editors must remove the statement". The former means that if you remove some unsourced statement, noone can restore it without providing a citation. The latter makes removal an obligation.

I propose "must" instead of "may", because the latter makes removal non-mandatory (which is wrong).

With regard to the example provided by you, I added a "cn" tag to this statement. It seems the WWII article already cited Taylor, so the citation is present, but it was misplaced. I have no time to re-read Taylor right now, if other users will not fix the problem by the end of the year, I'll try to do that. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The former means that someone has to remove the uncited sentence. It says nothing about whether people (including that same someone) is allowed to put it right back.

Removal is non-mandatory. There are other options, ranging from fixing it to benign neglect; therefore, removal is not actually mandatory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• What about "should", following the MoSCoW method? " Should" is stronger than "may" but not as strong as "must". Masem (t) 15:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm perfectly ok with saying "should" as long as we include the alternatives, but I agree with WAID that we absolutely can't say "must" because if we do include the alternatives, then there is no way to make it imperative for an editor to choose between fixing, tagging, or removing, and we can't force an editor to be obligated to choose to one since it is just simply a morally bad option. Huggums537 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The policy page is, at this point, out-of-order

At this point, the policy communicates removing anything uncited and this is completely unacceptable.

Yes, "may" can mean "may not", but unfortunately readers are not required to take this view and so we have a problem. I suggest restoring the "alternatives" regardless of whether or not they are "equivalent", as an emergency repair to the policy's introduction. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Another option would be to write "any unsourced material may be removed" because this means the material is definitively invalid, and so ultimately would never be able to be on Wikipedia. At least the logic of that policy would be sound. The question of sourcing would merely be "in delay", say, discussion or otherwise. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

you need to read that sentence in context of the preceding one: All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. the only things that needs an inline citation are quotes or contentious material. Masem (t) 01:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @

WP:BURDEN. Also, I agree with you that restoring the alternatives don't have to be "equivalent", and really don't see what that has to do with anything at all. Huggums537 (talk

) 01:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize inline citations weren't always required. And so at this point I do think that it might be too quick a summary to present each alternative as equivalent, because editors should know the differences for when to use each alternative. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, this "likely to be challenged" is redundant. If I see some statement that, in my opinion, is likely to be challenged, I can either take no action (which means, I am acting as an ordinary reader, so this policy in not applicable to me), or I may write on the article's talk page: "Hey, the statement X it is likely to be challenged, let's do something with that.", or I may put a "cn" tag. However, by doing that, I de facto challenge the statement X. In other words, we have no way let other users know that some statement X "is likely to be challenged" without challenging that statement. Therefore, "is likely to be challenged" is redundant, and it should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I may put a "cn" tag. However, by doing that, I de facto challenge the statement X. I think that is only your interpretation saying, "I hereby challenge this material.", and it sounds ok on paper, except there is no direct accountability for the

WP:BURDEN of the person who added it, just a general challenge issued to the community at large. This is very much at odds with BURDEN since it is not designed to be a war with the general community, but a responsibility of the person who added, and is now trying to restore. Another different interpretation of the CN tag is an editor sending a general message to the community, "hey somebody might want to help find sources for this because it looks like maybe is likely it could get challenged.", and "this needs a source, but I can't find one please help.", or any number of other interpretations that are not "de facto" challenges to the editor adding or trying to restore the material. In other words, simply leaving a tag doesn't notify the editor who added and might want to restore, it only notifies the general community so a "challenge" has not been issued. You can't demand the BURDEN be on an editor, and then turn right around and deprive them of the very opportunity to meet that responsibility by keeping them in the dark when their material is challenged. (BTW, don't ask me how you are supposed to dig up the history, and find the editor who added the material, or the proper procedure for how to notify them about your "official challenge" because I didn't write this messed up policy, I just interpret as I read, but it only goes to show you that even the most heavily bolded emphasis on policy is just a little bit off enough to prove maybe that wasn't so "de facto" after all) Huggums537 (talk

) 00:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind all that. I just now saw you agreed down below that "likely to be challenged" is more aimed at editors adding material, and I also agree with that. Huggums537 (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I also don't like the fluff in that policy wording. It breeds potential for abuse. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. The language is also present in other places—at the very least it's in

MOS:LEADCITE. LEADCITE is the place I see this mentioned the most, and editors are having productive conversations about what content in the lead needs a citation based on the likelihood of a challenge. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs

) 02:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the "likely to be challenged" bit is aimed at the editor who is adding the material, not people looking at it later. We don't want scenarios like this:

• 2010: I add a sentence asserting that when B cells internalize antigens for processing, membrane-anchored IgD is systematically excluded from the resulting vesicle. Nobody's challenged my new sentence yet, and policy doesn't require a citation for material unless it's a direct quotation or already challenged. I can easily predict someone will want a citation for this, but policy says I don't have to bother until the challenge appears.
• 2011: I quit editing.
• 2012: Someone really wonders whether I just made up all of that.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I had likewise figured that it is for adding material. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the policy to me. There is no issue. I did not know that material could exist without some form of citation. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Would you find it useful if the policy said somewhere, perhaps in a footnote, something like "While all material must be verifiable, not all material is require to have an inline citation"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily, because I would say that editors should strive to include citations as much as possible, but thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You said "I did not know that material could exist without some form of citation." I imagine that other editors also do not know this. How do you think that we could we help people to learn this fact? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The "explicit policy" approach: yes, that's good too. I suppose a footnote would suffice, but I would support either that or even a sentence without footnote. "While all material must be verifiable, not all material is required to have an inline citation" is nicely clear. Altanner1991 (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

For future reference, this has since been raised as a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Verifiable, not verified. Altanner1991 (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems that you are right, and "likely to be challenged" is an instruction to those who add some new material. I would say that these two sentences ("All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed.") should be made more clear. The first should describe what we should do with the information that we add, whereas the second one should tell what should we do when we see some unreferenced statement. Obviously, when I am adding some information that is likely to be challenged, I am expected to provide an inline citation. That is what the first sentence should say. ("All quotations, and any material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.") The second sentence explains what we should do when we see some information that was not supported by a reference: "Any material that needs an inline citation, but does not have one should be removed if the problem is impossible to fix in a reasonable time."

In other words,

• if you add some information and you feel that information is not obvious, add an inline citation. That is what the first sentence should say.
• if you see some information that was added by somebody else, and this information needs a reference, that must be fixed (either by adding a ref or by removal). That is what the second sentence should say.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think all this rewording is too much, and only confuses things more. It was much more simple when we were just talking about adding "fix"/"tag", and choosing between "may" or something else. Huggums537 (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Having said that, I think Paul S. is right that the guidance is not clear. Everything in the paragraph that talks about inline citations references the exact same four things mentioned in

WP:BURDEN. Three of these things are very easily identifiable as obvious reasons for either adding a citation when you add the material, or removing/fixing the material when you encounter it. This fourth "likely to be challenged" is not so obvious because I think most editors don't realize that it belongs to a group of items which are very easily identifiable as obviously needing a citation meaning that since it belongs to that group, this is how it is intended for us to interpret it. I think sometimes editors see it as meaning "maybe might need a citation, maybe not" or "questionable enough so go ahead and add" and I have even seen such sage advice as "when in doubt just add", and this all seems like reasonable advice on the face of it, but how can you really quantify what lingering "doubts" there might be as to what qualifies as "questionable" in the mind of any particular editor? The answer is that it is far easier to remove the doubts, and quantify what qualifies as likely to be challenged by including it within the list of things that are required to have inline citations. Those are the things likely to be challenged, and even those things don't always get challenged. Many times they are just tagged, or fixed. The point there being that just because the guidance tells us it is only the obvious stuff that is "likely to be challenged" still might not mean it would ever be actually challenged. Although it "likely"(80%-90%) would. Huggums537 (talk

) 11:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I have often thought that the phrasing should be reversed; from: "... is challenged or likely to be challenged" to "... is likely to be challenged or actually is challenged". This would better follow the chain of events:

1) you want to add material...

2) You should ask: is it the sort of material that is likely to be challenged?

3) if so, you should include a citation... if not, you can skip it... unless/until

4) it turns out that someone else actually does challenge it. At that point, you are required to cite it, even if you originally thought a challenge unlikely. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Another option for 4) is "If another editor thinks your added material is correct but is likely to be challenged then the other editor may provide the citation." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

In which case, the material was not challenged… it was edited. Blueboar (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

These sound like reasonable ideas here, but I forgot to mention in my comment above about the opposite end of the spectrum. I think that since the guidance is telling editors who want to add that the most obvious things that are likely to be challenged are required to have inline citations, then the opposite is also true that only the most obvious things should ever be included without an inline citation. In other words, always add some kind of attribution, (which must be an inline citation in some cases), unless it is just obvious one is not needed. The problem is that it is not always obvious to everyone when an inline citation is not needed. Even if you look at the sky is blue examples about the capital city Paris, France that @

general references and attribution in the article body are allowed even though they are not the best. Huggums537 (talk

) 16:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"At that point, you are required to cite it" assumes that "you" are still editing (that article; at all), which is not something to be relied upon.

Also, I think that editors would read that line and think '"you" means "not me", so I don't have to be helpful or collaborative. All I have to do is say "Simon says I challenge this!" and then I get to blank everything unless you do it my way.' This leads to pointy-headed behavior, like challenging material that you are certain is verifiable just because you don't like adding citations yourself, or tagging all uncited sentences in an article and coming back 30 days later to blank everything, unless a whole bunch of other volunteers drop everything to provide all the citations by your arbitrary deadline. See also "This article is a mess, so I'm going to send it to AFD, because the threat of deletion motivates people to clean up articles." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Blueboar, you are almost right, except " At that point, you are required to cite it". It is Wikipedia, and nobody is required to do anything. It would be more correct to say:

"At that point, neither you nor anybody else can prevent your material from being removed, even if you originally thought nothing was wrong with the text. The only way to preserve it is to add some reliable source that directly supports your statement."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Paul's got it. That's our real process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit was reverted[3] by Jc3s5h, but AFAIK, this is the current policy, and I was not changing it, simply explaining it better. Andre🚐 02:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

The means of gaining access to a source mentioned include online access that requires paying a fee, a print source in a library, and rare historical sources in special museum collections and archives. More often than not, providing access to a source through these means is publication. By adding the statement "though they still must have been published at one time" it creates an implication that making documents available through a public archive, or a web site that charges fees, is not publication.

An example of a document that is not published is a document in an archive, or similar entity, that is not accessible to the public. An example of an unpublished document would be a death certificate held by a US state health department that is not made available to the public, because it has been less than 100 years since the person died. An example of a published document would be a death certificate from the very same state health department that is available to anyone who pays the required fee because the person died more than 100 years ago. User:Jc3s5h 02:28, 29 August 2022‎

An unpublished document is not verifiable because it's not published. Verifiability is about published sources. Archives where you have to make an appointment to dig through them, that's OR. See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Objection_to_"Definition_of_published" Andre🚐 02:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Documents available to the general public, especially in an organized way, are published. Lots of documents are hard to use, that doesn't make them unpublished. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like we're talking past each other. I agree that some documents are for-pay, or hard to obtain, whether journals needing a subscription, or something that's out of print. These sources are acceptable to use. I am trying to clarify that unpublished archival sources aren't usable. Andre🚐 03:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

If the archive is open to the public (or the archive makes some documents available to the public and the document being cited is available) then it's published. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(

WP:NOR as a dilettante, we should not be looking at primary source archival records. Leave that research to legitimate historians as we can use the secondary sources they publish. Again, the point here is that publication is the bedrock of verifiability, regardless that a book is out of print or a website is behind a paywall. That a primary source document exists somewhere does not verify facts in the way we need. And, might I say, the way many editors on this website shamefully ignore checking sources, I'm surprised you want to quibble over this point. Chris Troutman (talk

) 03:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Chris, for a change ;-) Andre🚐 03:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to say that they are 1) unpublished, 2) not usable, and 3) to use them is OR. All three are incorrect interpretations of WP's definitions of "published", acceptable RS, and OR (what does WP:OR have to do with you having to pay to access a document? Where is that kind of thing mentioned, or hinted at, anywhere in that policy, or in that policy's history?) SamuelRiv (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Huh? I just said, that, for-pay sources: "These sources are acceptable to use" Maybe you don't know about this, but there is such a thing as an archive, it's a physical place where you can go and look through records. These records often were never published and that is why in the past, and as far as I know, continuing to today, the community has considered it original research and unverifiable to go digging through specialized records that were never published, as in made available to the public (not, just, to some people like academic researchers by appointment) Andre🚐 03:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

That sort of thing would very much depend on the context and I don't think a policy can reliably specify when an archive would be an acceptable source. For example, an archive of presidential papers that permitted general access might be acceptable as verification for some text (and it might not). If a business has an archive box of papers in their warehouse, it would probably not be acceptable as a source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

There's whiplash between here and the RS thread -- I suppose I had the expectation that you could take combined context from the conversation previously, within hours between posts, remember them, and conclude that I probably made a typo, and then address the substantive point: that OR says nothing about "digging through records that were never published" (and whether or not "the community has considered it original research and unverifiable" (two different policies) (to claim the community has concluded this requires a link to past discussion) is not really helpful if the stable policy does not in any way state this. OR is about writing articles, not about how you go about "digging through records".

The broader issue seems that you want to expand WP's definition of 'published'. It's short and simple and easy to understand as is. It is then a tool which helps write clearer policies which are then used for RS, V, etc., that might conform to what you might colloquially prefer to think of as 'published'. Don't then go around and say that a foundational tool made to be as simple as possible is now inadequate because it doesn't fit your preferred colloquial definition -- that's not its purpose. SamuelRiv (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hang on, it's a well-established community consensus that unpublished sources, which does include some archival records, are not acceptable per

WP:V. You are incorrect in your understanding of policy. Since you and I have had this difficulty in the past of not really operating in the same consensus-based factual reality, let's agree to disagree and someone else will be around presently to correct you (or me, but I'm pretty sure it's you) Andre🚐

04:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstood entirely what I said. I don't think me restating it will help. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)