The project page associated with this talk page is an officialpolicy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please reviewpolicy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember tokeep cool when editing, anddon't panic.
Q: When wasWP:CONEXCEPT, which says that editors at the English Wikipedia do not get to overrule the Wikimedia Foundation on issues like server load, software and legal issues, first added?
I'm not sure what "admins will not decide content issues authoritatively" means in the policy, for example when concluding an AfD, an admin will eventually decide whether content gets deleted or is kept, that to me is an content-related decision. Therefore how are admin decisions separated from the content?Xpander (talk)17:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Put another way: At AfD, the admin is saying "You all decided to delete this, so I will push the delete button for you". The admin is not saying "I'm an admin, and I get to decide what's going to happen here, because I'm more important than you!"WhatamIdoing (talk)18:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It means that in a content dispute Admins aren't allowed to use their admin authority in any way, for example by blocking people who disagree with them or by locking the page on their prefered version... Or even by saying "I'm an admin and that means you need to follow my lead on content." When it comes to content disputes all editors are equal, when it comes to behavioral disputes some editors are more equal than others so to speak.Horse Eye's Back (talk)18:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example, an AfD is 50-50, then aDeletionist admin could close the discussion as "Delete" and a "Inclusionist" could close the discussion as "Keep". Isn't that deciding "content issues" authoritatively?Xpander (talk)04:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD outcomes are not decided by counting votes (at the English Wikipedia; other Wikipedias have different rules). Anyone closing an AfD should be considering the messages. For example, if there are two editors saying "delete, because I can't find any sources" and two editors saying "keep, because here's a list of good sources we can use to expand it", then the article should be kept (and every admin will close it that way). Alternatively, if there are two editors saying "delete, because I can't find any sources" and two editors saying "keep, because we don't need sources", then the article should be deleted (and every admin will close it that way).WhatamIdoing (talk)07:14, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I should have mentioned I didn't mean counting votes, but the weight of the arguments is 50-50. Thanks for your explanations. For example 2 editors say there are 3-GNG making sources while 2 others dispute the reliability of those sources.Xpander (talk)10:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a truly 50/50 case,most Admins (and note that closers don’thave to be Admins) will close with “No consensus” rather than imposing their own opinion to “break” the tie.
Agree with Blueboar, if the weight of argument is 50-50 then the perspective closer would either not close the discussion so that it could continue or close it as no consensus. In terms of the specific example of multiple RS being contested like that it should probably be brought to RSN as its unlikely that such a RS contest would impact only that page. The RSN consenus would then inform the AfD one, but thats an easy example... One is side wrong and the other is right but finding out which is which will take a secondary venue or discussion, closers often have to deal with a lot more complicated issues than that.Horse Eye's Back (talk)23:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree with the responses to the OP, I think it is reasonable that the OP didn't understand the text without help. The meaning of "authoritatively" is unclear. It would be better to state the principle more directly. Instead of "administrators...will not decide content issues authoritatively", something like "administrators...do not have the authority to overrule ordinary editors on content issues".Zerotalk08:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the relevant text:
Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively. They may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process (such asedit-warring,abuse of multiple accounts, or a lack ofcivility). They may also make decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy, but will not usually go beyond such actions.
I don't think that "administrators...do not have the authority to overrule ordinary editors on content issues" will work, because we'll get POV pushers complaining when an admin reverts them.
We usually say something like "admins do not get any extra say in content decisions". I don't think that will work, either. Maybe:
Keep in mind, however, that administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior. They may block editors for behaviors that interfere with the consensus process (such asedit-warring,abuse of multiple accounts, or a lack ofcivility).Administrators may participate in discussions about article content like any other editor. Within their role as an admin, they may also make some decisions about whether edits are or are not allowable under policy(e.g., whether an article needs to be deleted as a copyright violation, or whether an edit violates theWikipedia:Biographies of living persons rules), but they will not usually go beyond such actionsto issue judgments about which views an article must include. Anyone who writes aclosing summary for a discussion is meant to write a summary of the other editors' agreement, rather than to impose their own view.
IAR says that if a rule prevents you from improving, or maintaining, the encyclopedia you should ignore it. It doesn't say you can edit and noone can disagree or change you edits. Ultimately you will have to justify your use of IAR and convince other that you are right. LOCALCONSENSUS even says this "For instance,unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." (bolding added). --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°19:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently edited an article about the 588 Persian-Turkish wars, and I was accused of being a puppet here. However, the chat user denied this, and the edits I made to that article were likely deleted because they thought I was a puppet. I wrote to the discussion page, but no one responded. The edits I made were sourced and reliable. Could you please restore them as soon as possible?Tarih sevdalısı 123 (talk)20:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarih sevdalısı 123, this is not the place to make such a request. If you will provide a link to the article you tried to edit then I will try to point you in the right direction (unless someone else does it before I can reply). -Butwhatdoiknow (talk)06:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in behavioral questioning, they look at the topics I've studied and discussed, I think. I'm not entirely sure, but it hasn't been fully proven yet. So, I don't see any problem with reverting the changes I've made. If you could direct me to the exact place where I can write about this issue, I would be very grateful.Tarih sevdalısı 123 (talk)17:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "reverting the changes I've made" I think you mean "restoring the changes I've made." While I understand your desire to do that as quickly as possible, it's best to let the sockpuppet inquiry run its course. -Butwhatdoiknow (talk)19:55, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Related to that, I wonder whether LOCALCON needs another hatnote:Forminga consensus through discussion on the affected article's talk page is not a "local consensus".
We should probably change it to NARROWCON rather than LOCALCON… the location where a consensus was formed is less important than the number of participants that formed it. A well attended RFC that involved 100 editors is a better gage of project wide consensus than one that only involved eight editors… no matter where the two discussions took place.
The problem is that the larger (wider) consensus might be located at a “local” page while the smaller (narrower) consensus might be located at a “guideline” page.Blueboar (talk)02:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors might use "a narrow consensus" to describe a 60% headcount, or to describe a consensus that agreed to a small part of a proposed change. I'm not sure that we're going to fix this withWP:UPPERCASE.
The persistence of this type of request makes me wonder whether there is demand in the community to have a written algorithm for determining whether the consensus in a given discussion is likely to represent the consensus of the community (e.g., more editors is better than fewer editors; experienced editors is better than brand-new accounts; RFCs are better than unadvertised discussions, etc.)WhatamIdoing (talk)02:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MoveWP:ONUS to this policy? - preliminary discussion
This is a very preliminary “RFC BEFORE” type of question… I have long thought thatWP:ONUS (a one sentence section ofWP:V) should be moved toWP:Consensus. It really has nothing to do with Verifiability - and is all about Consensus, so I think it would be better placed here. I would like to discuss.Please note that my question is focused purely on thelocation of ONUS, not itswording. Please share your thoughts.Blueboar (talk)22:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was more along the lines of having them both in one policy, rather than Editing specifically, which I agree with, and putting them in Consensus seems fine to me.Selfstudier (talk)12:15, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, if/when we hold a formal RFC on this, the suggestion would be to move both ONUSand NOCON to WP:Consensus? (I would be ok with that.)Blueboar (talk)13:26, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. ONUS, the one line, “ The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content” belongs atWP:Editing policy. It does not belong atWP:Consensus because it describes neither consensus not how to get to consensus. It is what happens when there is not consensus.
Joe, you don’t think it makes more sense for a policy about achievingconsensus to address what we should do when achievingconsensus proves elusive?Blueboar (talk)01:26, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think it does not make sense for WP:Consensus to have sections that presuppose the lack of consensus as a final state.
From the WP:Consensus perspective, where there is disagreement about the inclusion of content, it should point to methods to achieve a consensus result. Discuss on the talk page. Get outside opinions via WP:3O, through to WP:RfC.
What to do in the meantime, during periods of no consensus, when presumably all interested good Wikipedians are working towards achieving consensus, WP:Editing policy is appropriate. Editing does not stop due to no consensus. Editing is the best most important method for achieving consensus.
WP:Consensus should be about advice on achieving, and recognising consensus, and should never lock in “consensus is that there is no consensus”.SmokeyJoe (talk)10:28, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editing is a hugely important method for achieving consensus in articles, but I'm not sure that's true with (e.g.,) Wikipedia's internal procedures.
Editing comes first. Then discussion. Then publicising steps. Then RfC. As long as the RfC is done right, it has a good question, good participation, and a good close, we can call the result “consensus”.SmokeyJoe (talk)00:14, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes discussion comes first, then editing, then more discussion, more editing, more discussion and eventually consensus emerges without an RFC. Those are probably the most likely to change.
And then there are situations where we do need an RFC. Often that RFC results in a consensus (which tends to not change, or changes slowly)… but then there are the cases where the RFC results in “no consensus”. Those tend to be the problematic ones… because we give conflicting advice as to what to do when we can’t reach a consensus.Blueboar (talk)01:47, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At xfd, consensus is that no consensus defaults to keep.
For disputed content? WP:ONUS is not helpful. It should point to a mechanism, and the place is WP:Editing policy. How to edit when it’s contentious.SmokeyJoe (talk)03:20, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. It does not belong in WP:V. I’ve been aware of the ONUS conversy, but never paid it much attention. Now, on looking, I see it suffering from not being actionable. It should be replaced with guidance as to what should be done.SmokeyJoe (talk)11:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps… but the question of what to replace ONUS with has already been discussed multiple times over at WT:V - with no progress. Reaching a consensus onwording will probably take a lot MORE discussion.
However, justmoving it (without any change to language… at least for now) is, I think, a more achievable goal.
I’m hesitant talk much about ONUS, because I haven’t read the history of discussions about it, but your riddle seems pretty easy. “Wrong” is common to both, so cancel it out.
I agree. It may also be necessary to spell out that we're talking about moving one sentence (and its shortcut) from one{{policy}} to another{{policy}}, and that it will still be a{{policy}} because all of the pages involved are already tagged as{{policy}}.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC options should be in the format (with better wording):
ONUS states (ONUS sentence), in what policy should this be included.
This should stay in the Verification policy
This should be moved to Editing policy
This should be moved to Consensus policy
This should be moved to some other policy page (please state which policy)
With opening text saying that this is only about potentially moving ONUS to a different policy.
Ok, it looks like there is enough initial support for the idea of moving ONUSout of WP:V that I think we can begin to formulate an official RFC on it.
Where to move itto and whether toalso move NOCON can be a sub-question to ask at the RFC.
Since this has the potential to involve multiple PAGs (WP:V, WP:Consensus, WP:EP), I am thinking that the RFC should take place at the Village Pump (policy)… any objections to that?Blueboar (talk)13:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. Regarding where to move it to, I suggest offering a new separate page as an option (as an alternative to squabbling over EP vs. Consensus). -Butwhatdoiknow (talk)18:11, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Offering multiple options has a lot of potential for a split vote. I'd rather have a single proposal.
First of all, consensus is not an election result.
Putting that aside, let's say the RFC has two questions: 1. Should ONUS be removed from V? 2. Should ONUS be placed in EP? What happens if there is a consensus to move ONUS but not one to move it to EP? Does ONUS stay were it is? -Butwhatdoiknow (talk)00:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer myproposal which was to move the ONUS shortcut to a new section at Consensus (and leave the text at V the same), so both ONUS and NOCON would be there. This would be the simplest solution. (I'm repeating my 02:04, 18 April 2025 comment at WT:EP.)Kolya Butternut (talk)00:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've disussed this to death. I don't know where to begin. I don't know if you've read my proposal and the prevous discussions, starting with the linked WT:EP discussion above.Kolya Butternut (talk)03:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Oversimplified summary:
Kolya wants ONUS expanded so it applies to all changes. ONUS currently says that if Alice removes Bob's cited addition, then Bob has to convince everyone to let him restore it. Kolya would like it to say that if Alice wants to change an article, and Bob disagrees, then it's Alice's job to convince everyone to let her change the article. As a "change" includes edits unrelated to verifiability (e.g., rearranging sections), it would not make sense to keep such an expanded version in WP:V.)WhatamIdoing (talk)04:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I wanted to focus onlocation rather thanlanguage. Even if we accept Kolya’s suggested language we still have an instruction about consensus in a policy about verifiability. The instruction is still misplaced.Blueboar (talk)13:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blueboar, please listen to what I am saying and not WhatamIdoing's narrative of what I am saying. WAID is coming from a place of believing that you can remove longstanding content with implicit consensus and then the onus to restore it is on those wanting to restore it. In actuality, the purpose of the existing Onus sentence at WP:V is simply to communicate that verifiability is not enough to make content DUE. This instruction can stay at V. My proposal avoids the controversy by leaving that instruction there while rewriting what we call "onus" as an uncontroversial reiteration of existing editing and consensus policies. My new sentence states "changes to consensus", not simply "changes". This removes the controversy.Kolya Butternut (talk)15:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kolya, you know better than to edit one policy just to “win” a current dispute at another. The split of VNOT and ONUS into two sections at WP:V was (briefly) discussed and approved at the time, and (more importantly) has remained stable despite over a year of on going discussion about ONUS at that page. If you want to re-merge them, start a discussion at WP:V. I have reverted to the current split version.Blueboar (talk)17:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused because it seems like it doesn't belong there because of how it is relatively newly out of context. At this point it makes sense to just remove it completely.Kolya Butternut (talk)17:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So (just for background)… I was the one who originally added the statement that is now VNOT to WP:V (many years ago)… It did not originally include the ONUS sentence.
What is now ONUS was added a bit later. I didn’t object at the time, but the addition always struck me as a non-sequitur that had nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph. Yet that additional sentence quickly dominated all the subsequent discussions. So… a year ago, I suggested breaking them apart, and edited accordingly. Hope that history helps you to understand why I am now suggesting moving ONUS (but not VNOT).Blueboar (talk)18:28, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as a non sequitur and never have, it is the sequitur to (weak) V (believe in good faith that a source supports a bit of information) is not a completed reason for inclusion, and to the 'editing reflects consensus' rule.Alanscottwalker (talk)18:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are getting sidetracked.This isn’t the place to discuss edits to WP:V (that discussion should take place over at WT:V itself). The purpose ofthis thread is to discuss my idea of moving the sentence to WP:Consensus.
It is pretty obvious why the burden is on those seeking to include disputed content. Otherwise, bogus information gains a privilege just by not being noticed for a while.Guy(help! -typo?)10:58, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot separate these issues. I believe that the issue that you're trying to correct now was created by separating onus into a separate section. I do not believe the onus sentence makes any sense separated from its context.Kolya Butternut (talk)20:01, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before it was separated most editors treated it as if it was separated. Efforts to insert text limiting its effect to V failed. The separation just recognized the reality of its use by the community (which you and I disagree with, but what are you going to do?). -Butwhatdoiknow (talk)20:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like it will be necessary to specify in more detail, e.g.:
----
WP:ONUS is a single sentence in theWikipedia:Verifiability that says"The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Some editors think that this sentence is off topic for that policy. They ask you:
Do you think the following should be added to Consensus: "The onus to achieve consensus for changes to consensus is on those seeking the change"? Do you think that is a reiteration of existing policy? I don't think asking people to move the onus sentence in its current state will solve anything.Kolya Butternut (talk)23:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the overall strategy isn't clear to everyone, so here's a summary: We have a bunch of different ideas about how to solve ONUS-related problems in our written policies. If we put all the questions in front the community, they will almost certainly !vote for "too complicated, leave it alone".
If we want to have a chance of making any actual progress, we have to do this in baby steps. "Baby steps" means picking a small, simple question and either getting it done, or getting it rejected. If we say "You know this sentence here? Let's put it over there" and the community rejects this idea, then we don't have to talk about that option for the next five or ten years, and we can go on to other ideas, without someone saying "Hey, I've got a 'new' idea: how about we just move that sentence to a different page?" and never making any progress at all, because the same ideas keep rising up from the dead.After (←that word meansnot now) we have one little baby question answered (either way!), we can talk about other questions to ask.
So that's the strategy, and at this point, I think the way you could help us achieve the goal of getting any decision made is to stop suggesting ways to make the RFC question more complicated.WhatamIdoing (talk)01:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be another baby step. I don't mind asking that question first. The point is that we won't get good answers if we open an RFC that says "How about we move this sentence to a different page? Or maybe leave the sentence there and just repoint the shortcut? Or delete the sentence? Or change its wording so it applies to all 'changes' instead of just 'inclusion'?" We won't get anywhere with that kind of approach. We have to pickone question (preferably one that we think we'll get a clear answer for), and ask thatone question, and then proceed from there.WhatamIdoing (talk)03:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started this thread to get some initial feedback to my idea of moving ONUS to this policy (WP:Consensus). I have gotten that initial feedback (luke warm reaction, most think EP would be a better target). Thank you all. Further discussions about ONUS should take place elsewhere.Blueboar (talk)13:14, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, the RFC about moving NOCON to EP has just been closed as “No consensus”… which Ithink means NOCON stays here at WP:Consensus. Does this change anyone’s opinions as to the target for a potential move of ONUS? Not asking you to re-argue everything you have expressed above. Just asking whether your opinion haschanged.Blueboar (talk)23:25, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the opposes were silly. “No consensus” is unsatisfying.
Moving NOCON to EP would involve rewriting it to fit EP. Here, it says nothing new, it summarises information from elsewhere. There, it would provide advice or instructions on what to do. I think it might be helpful to write a draft new WP:EP page to show what it would look like with NOCON integrated. And I would slip ONUS in on this hypothetical draft. Then ask:Should the draft new WP:EP be adopted?SmokeyJoe (talk)08:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rules can be paraphrased elsewhere and linked to. I still think that the existing onus sentence should not be moved, but instead it should link to WP: Consensus , perhaps at:When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common (but not required) result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.Kolya Butternut (talk)14:45, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common (but not required) result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Starting those discussions is the duty of the person who wants to include the disputed information (regardless of whether they're adding or restoring). If the dispute isn't about inclusion or exclusion, then somebody should start a discussion, but it's not any particular person's job to do so."WhatamIdoing (talk)23:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy would that be? We have a policy that says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content”. AFAICT we don't have any sentence in any policy that says something like "The responsibility for achieving consensus for removal is on those seeking to remove content" or "The responsibility for achieving consensus for rearrange content is on those seeking to include rearrange the content”. Can you quote for me any such sentence?WhatamIdoing (talk)03:34, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret the consensus and editing policies that way even if they don't use those words, that is the practice they are describing. I can't help you with your interpretation.Kolya Butternut (talk)03:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's no statement in any policy that says "No policy says that if you want to rearrange content, and there's an objection, thenyou have to start the discussioninstead of the guy who's objecting to your edit". That doesn't mean that this isn't the community's rule.
In fact, theWikipedia:Editing policy acknowledges that 'the other guy' might well take responsibility for starting that discussion ("If someone indicates disagreement with your bold edit by reverting itor contesting it in a talk page discussion...").
The popular BRD essay says "The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD" and "BRD is not aget-out-of-discussion-free card for the reverter". This indicates that the community does not have an ONUS-equivalent rule for all types of edits and all types of reverts: the ONUS is only on the person who wants to include information; for all other edits, everyone should take responsibility for determining consensus.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, editors who are opposed to adding material still have a responsibility to determine consensus. Responsibility is equal in both directions for all kinds of changes.Kolya Butternut (talk)23:15, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that ONUS is narrow, and that ONUS prescribes that the person who wants to include disputed material must demonstrate a positive consensus for its inclusion (e.g., by starting a discussion on the talk page).
Nothing says that the person wanting to make a non-inclusion-oriented change has any similar responsibility. Except for what is narrowly covered by ONUS, there is no statement in any policy that says the person wanting (e.g.,) to rearrange a page has any different responsibility for demonstrating consensus than the editor who wants to revert (e.g.,) that rearrangement.WhatamIdoing (talk)09:24, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this, from theWP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS section of this policy:When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion.
Note the word "editors". Not "the lone editor who boldly rearranged the page and thereby triggered a revert", but editors, in the plural, meaning any or all editors need to start a discussion and work out the dispute through discussion.
Contrast this with ONUS, which says it is specifically the person who wants to include information that must take responsibility for building the consensus.WhatamIdoing (talk)21:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The question posed by Blueboar is "Does [NOCON staying in Consensus] change anyone’s opinions as to the target for a potential move of ONUS?" My answer is "no." The problem is that if you ran an RFC to move ONUS to Consensus the result would also be "NO CONSENSUS." -Butwhatdoiknow (talk)15:46, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose the move, nonetheless, because it will make the encyclopedia worse by removing the context for the previous sentence in V and how it works, leading to ever more bloated article's and forcing in 'i gotta source' additions upon additions to articles without regard.Alanscottwalker (talk)16:55, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there's a perception that some official{{policy}} pages are stronger than others, so moving a sentence about consensus from the WP:V policy to the WP:CON policy is effectively downgrading it from a powerful policy to a weak one.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. The move would leave the 'consensus may determine toexclude V material' in V, and lose what we that we are talking about there, the consensus process: allincluded material needs to be V,and have consensus. --Alanscottwalker (talk)18:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" does not say that all included material needs to be V+have consensus. "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" says "if there's a dispute about material that has V, then it's Alice's job (and not Bob's) to start the discussion on the talk page and prove there's consensus to include the material that has V".
"Consensus may determine to exclude V material" isn't a 'consensus process' statement. "Alice has to prove that consensus exists if she wants to include that V material" is a consensus process statement. That's why people keep talking about moving the "Alice has to prove consensus" statement (but not the "Consensus may determine to exclude V material" non-process statement) tothe policy about consensus processes.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:58, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Did I not make it clear that taking it out of context is a terrible idea, so you taking it of context in your comment does not improve your reasoning nor is it responsive. It just leads to pettifogging. Read the two phrases together, that I have pointed out -- don't take one. That is how they were meant to be read and should be read.Alanscottwalker (talk)19:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While information must be verifiable for inclusion in anarticle, not all verifiable information must be included.Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted orpresented instead in a different article.
If you want to request an inline citation for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the{{citation needed}} template. You can also leave a note on thetalk page asking for a source, or move the material to the talk page and ask for a source there. To request verification that a reference supports the text, tag it with{{verification needed}}. Material that fails verification may be tagged with{{failed verification}} or removed. It helps other editors to explain your rationale for using templates to tag material in the template, edit summary, or on the talk page.
Take special care with contentiousmaterial about living and recently deceased people. Unsourced or poorly sourced material that is contentious, especially text that is negative, derogatory, or potentially damaging, should be removed immediately rather than tagged or moved to the talk page.
Any exceptional claim requiresmultiple high-quality sources.[1]Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include:
Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
Challenged claims that are supported purely byprimary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently deceased people. This is especially true when proponents say there is aconspiracy to silence them.
---
This is an ==Other issues== or "miscellaneous" section. I don't see any structural reason to think that the first two ===Sub-sections=== are closely intertwined and the other two sections are irrelevant. And I don't see anything in there that says the second sentence of subsection #1 is critical context for the only sentence in subsection #2, but (e.g.,) the fourth and seventh sentences of subsection #3 are unrelated, even though both of them mention removing content.
I think that the separate paragraphs stand alone, and do not depend on each other for their meaning. "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" makes sense whether you've read the preceding subsection or not, and vice versa.
For comparison, I do see connections between "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" andWikipedia:Consensus#Through discussion. The ONUS sentence is aboutwho needs to achieve a consensus, and the WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS section is abouthow they can do that.WhatamIdoing (talk)19:29, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alanscottwalker, if you are correct, does the ONUS sentence need to be said? Isn't it redundant by the preceding "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate"?
No, without the clarification, some will read it as consensus is needed to excludeany verifiable material, It needs to be read:
Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted orpresented instead in a different article. . . .The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
So you read "Consensusmay determine that...a verifiable fact...should be omitted" and believe that inclusionist wikilawyers) will interpret this as "Consensusis required to determine that...a verifiable fact...should be omitted".
I've been irritated by the word "may" in our policies for a while, as it can be read as "it might happen" or "this is allowed". Would solve your concern, while also removing two instances the word that irritates me?
−
Consensusmaydeterminethatinclusionofaverifiablefact orclaimdoesnotimproveanarticle,and other policiesmayindicatethatthematerialisinappropriate
+
Verifiablefactsandclaimsthatdonotimproveanarticle, orthatareinappropriateaccordingto other policiesandguidelines,canberemoved.
Or perhaps you'd prefer something like this:
−
Consensusmaydeterminethatinclusionofaverifiable fact or claimdoesnotimproveanarticle,andotherpoliciesmayindicatethatthematerialisinappropriate
+
Beingverifiableisa[[necessarybutnotsufficient]]qualityforevery fact or claiminanarticle.Afactorclaimthatcomplieswiththispolicycanstillberemovedifitsinclusionviolatesotherpoliciesorguidelines.
Folks… discussion about changing thelanguage of ONUS should take place at the page where ONUS actually is (currently at WP:V)… should we move it here,then this page can discuss language… but until then, this is the wrong location.Blueboar (talk)21:27, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We were not talking about changing the language of ONUS, we are talking about the dangers of stripping the language from where it has always given context for the operation of the V policy. Thus, such a move will damage Wikipedia for the reasons discussed: suggesting that to excludeany V material you need a consensus to exclude.
WAID: The section begins:
'"While information must be verifiable for inclusion in anarticle, not all verifiable information must be included."
[So, I'm not just concerned with wikilawyers. I'm concerned that well meaning people will read the rest as, 'how is it that Verifiable things are not included', and they will read:]
"Consensus may determine that inclusion of a verifiable fact or claim does not improve an article, and other policies may indicate that the material is inappropriate. Such information should be omitted orpresented instead in a different article."
[Thus, we need . . .] "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."
[Where it is and where it belongs and has always belonged in the V policy]
I don't think that a statement that editors might form a consensus to remove somethingneeds a statement that the person wanting to keep it is the person who has to be responsible for demonstrating consensus for their version. For one thing, people who want to remove content frequently to start those discussions themselves, despite no policy saying they're required to do so.
We do need it, if we don't want likely damage to the pedia. And we need it to make sense of the process. The concepts repeated over and over again showing they are meant to be read together, are "Verifiable . . .included. Consensus . . . inclusion . . .omitted . . .Consensus ... inclusion . . . . And this part of V policy is nothing new.Alanscottwalker (talk)22:32, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest NOCON and ONUS be copied to and expanded in an essay. Expanded so that it can be clarified as to what they actually mean.SmokeyJoe (talk)21:45, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there's a perception that some official {{policy}} pages are stronger than others, so moving a sentence about consensus from the WP:V policy to the WP:CON policy is effectively downgrading it from a powerful policy to a weak one.WhatamIdoing (talk)18:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)
Yes. Core content policies, WP:NOR,V,NPOV, and selected others, WP:BLP,Copyrights, outrank others. Sorry, in anticipation, I cannot prove this perception that I feel lies amongst most Wikipedians, despite being aware that some have emphatically denied it.SmokeyJoe (talk)21:41, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In medical/pseudoscientific subjects, I find that editors much prefer to cite WP:V than WP:NPOV. It's easier to play a game ofWP:FETCH than to explain (for the umpteenth time) that the stupid thing the stupid editor is stupidly pushing is stupid and won't be accepted because Wikipedia is not a place for stupidity. "Come back when you have a pair of MEDRS-ideal sources to support your claim that Natural Wonderpam® cures cancer" sounds more open-minded than "That snake oil will go in this article over my dead body, you gullible moron" – though the net meaning is the same, in most of these cases.WhatamIdoing (talk)06:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CON saying that editors have to find a consensus for everything.
I feel I am grossly missing the point, but WP:CON doesn’t say anyone has to do anything. It’s not that sort of policy. It is not an actionable rule-setting policy.SmokeyJoe (talk)21:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Except to say that we decide things by consensus. The policy is flexible as tohow consensus can be achieved (process), and as tohow it is determined (actionable process) … but once itis achieved/determined, consensus rules everything we do.Blueboar (talk)21:59, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Consensus policy appears to give a presumption [of regularity] (presumed consensus) to the text that is in Main space, which naturally raises the sticky wicket of how is the presumption dispelled and by who, which leads to 'it depends' on the situation because we can't possibly think of all the ways it may arise (or even how the challenge begins and develops) and on what issue(s) you are actually looking for consensus (words?, phrases?, meaning?, structure? reliable source[s]?, V?, POV?, OR?, CVIO? BLP? NOT? 5P?, etc). --Alanscottwalker (talk)16:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This policy says: "An edit haspresumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted".
I therefore assume that the presumption of consensus (though not necessarily the consensus itself) is dispelled when anyone disputes or reverts it.
Consider this:
There is an RFC, and everyone agrees to add (e.g.,) a particular map to an article. The map's inclusion hasdemonstrated consensus.
As a result of the RFC's consensus, Alice adds the map to the article. It sits unchallenged for years. The map's inclusion now haspresumed consensus as well asdemonstrated consensus.
Years later, Nell Newbie (unaware of the prior discussion) sees the map and thinks it's a bad idea, so she removes it. This editor's removal of the map means that the map's inclusion now hasdemonstrated consensus but notpresumed consensus.
Here's one possible path from that point:
Bob re-reverts with an edit summary saying "See [Talk:Example#Big map RFC]".
Nell accepts this outcome, and we're back to having bothpresumed consensus anddemonstrated consensus.
Here's another common path from that point:
Bob re-reverts with an edit summary saying "See Talk:Example#Big map RFC".
Nell objects, and another discussion happens on the talk page, producing anew demonstrated consensus for either including or excluding the map.
It's odd how you focus on one fact pattern in response to a comment concerning many fact patterns, and you don't even complete the fact pattern. The new editor deletes the map, new edit has presumed consensus, and that's the end of it, until maybe many years later. Nor is it at all logical to claim a presumed consensus is not [demonstrated] consensus. That's what presumed means, it exists, it's demonstrated in the article edit. Finally "it depends" is from Consensus policy, the complexity is built in, because the situations and issues are myriad.Alanscottwalker (talk)22:14, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Presumed consensus" is "nobody reverted yet". That ends when someone reverts (though there might still be other kinds of consensus in place).
(What I call) "Demonstrated consensus" is "there was a discussion on a talk page that resulted in an agreement".
You have now over-simplified reversion, changing some text, punctuation, etc in editing may or may not be a reversion but its the change that has presumed consensus, nor is reversion the only "dispute". And those "facts" as you call them are different, but the major difference and perhaps the only difference of significance is what the reader, reads in the article.Alanscottwalker (talk)12:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To make the distinction between "demonstrated" (you might preferdocumented?) and "presumed" consensus, I thought it unlikely that something like punctuation or copyediting would have been the subject of a prior discussion. (I'd cheerfully vote forSerial comma at every opportunity, but most editors would think this is too trivial for a significant discussion.)
For some aspect of the page to have presumed consensus, it only needs to be present on the page and not actively disputed.
For that same thing to have demonstrated consensus (←my own word; not official), there must have been a discussion showing support for that choice.
For that same thing to have true consensus, it must align with the community's actual view.
The last one is the most important, but it is sometimes difficult to know that last one. Therefore, in practice, we tend to focus on the first two: Is there an edit war or a shouting match? Then editors "presumably" accepted this, but you can boldly change that. Can you find a prior discussion showing support for the current state of the page? If so, then this is "demonstrated" consensus, butWikipedia:Consensus can change.WhatamIdoing (talk)17:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
