Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Partial rewrite of Questionable Sources

Please see Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC on whether WP:V and WP:RS apply to Further reading

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Marked as "RfC withdrawn by nominator". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:V (and more specifically WP:SPS) says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert" (emphasis added). I think the first "expert" is redundant and should be removed (not as a change in policy, but as an improvement in grammar). Any additional opinions? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:I noticed that the other day, and I agree with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:: Yep, go for it. Zero^talk 01:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{done}} Thanks, all! —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS sentence says:

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

Does this apply to material purely outside the mainspace? For example, does ONUS apply to a page like Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment (about which I'm aware of no disputes) or to an essay like Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, or to a help page like Help:Table?

(NB that I'm asking specifically about ONUS, not about Wikipedia:Consensus, so logically valid answers include answers like "ONUS itself doesn't, but CONS does, so the distinction is technical rather than practical".)

Because I think ONUS is purely about the mainspace, I've been thinking about changing the wording to reflect that, e.g., "The responsibility for achieving consensus to include something in an article is on those seeking to include disputed content." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well, everywhere when you represent that 'this is consensus', the onus on you. If I write a good sentence for an article or consensus essay, the onus was on me to write a sentence that now represents the consensus of the topic/essay/group page (until it doesn't, and then I (or someone else) have to work to reestablish the consensus for it or let it go.). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, but that's ordinary dictionary-definition onus, not WP:ONUS, which is a part of verifiability. If I decided to change the color of Template:Vandalism information, that has no connection to Wikipedia:Verifiability or WP:ONUS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think your reasoning is dancing on a pinhead, as they say. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Aren't these just extensions of WP:CONCENSUS? If you wanted to modify policy or guidance, and were reverted, it would be expected that consensus building would have to take place. Edit warring you change wouldn't be acceptable, so BRD is good advice even outside of article space, and ultimately if their wasn't consensus for your changes they would not be implemented. If you were unwilling to try and convince others of the change, then the change wouldn't be implemented, so in effect ONUS applies. The exact wording of either may not fit, but the general expectation of editors behaviour follows from more basic policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:02, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, consensus applies.

::::But ONUS (=remove anything disputed) isn't how disputes are usually handled outside the mainspace. BRD is good advice (though rarely relevant; Wikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD isn't actually BRD). But imagine the scenario in which the desired edit is to remove something:

::::* Alice: Ugh, that restriction in this guideline seems like a bad idea. Remove!

::::* Bob: Hey, don't just go changing the guideline. We need that rule!

::::* Alice: Nice try, but this restriction in the guideline is now "disputed content", and ONUS says "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." If you want this old rule in the guideline, then ONUS says you have to achieve consensus to include it.

::::There's no consensus for Alice's removal, and yet ONUS says Alice's edit should be kept, and Bob is responsible for building consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::This would again come done to what exactly the rule was. If someone inserted a rule into an obscure guidance page, and it went unnoticed for an extended time, removing it until it has consensus could make sense. On the other hand if someone tried to remove something from a central policy page that obviously has support, then retaining it during consensus building would be appropriate.
It's the same tension that exists in article content, whether something should be retained or excluded during consensus building has no single answer but should be dependent on the situation. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::In these situations, I think that we should use ordinary consensus rules (e.g., common sense) instead of the one-size-fits-most ONUS rule outside the mainspace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'd agree, all I'm saying is the concept is the same. There could be situations were an editor should find consensus for inclusion, even if the bold ONUS doesn't apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 00:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not convinced this is solving any real problem. A made-up, theoretical discussion does not warrant it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think ONUS definitely does not apply outside of mainspace, but I don't think it's worth tweaking the wording. Hopefully we can reserve all our ONUS-tweak-energy for addressing the perennial ONUS v. NOCON issue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::One place where ONUS does NOT apply is Userspace. Yes, there are limits to what one can have on user pages, but those limits are spelled out in policies and have been set by consensus.

::Beyond those limitations, the USER can decide what is included in the space (or not) - the user is free to add or to remove material as they wish. Blueboar (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Admittedly WP:ONUS looks out of place in a policy that's generally about mainspace but WP:ONUS responsibility should be even greater when we're talking about (say) bold changes to a PAG. I oppose changing the wording unless to clarify that it applies to PAGs too. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::ONUS would only apply to "bold additions", not to "bold removals" or "bold changes". WP:PGBOLD says "Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards", which is more stringent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Long ago there was another sentence "If your changes are removed, please make no further changes until the issue has been appropriately discussed on the talk page." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines&diff=next&oldid=305204757 Discarded] by M~enwiki. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:Onus had a good purpose and intention to be put in but ended up problematic. An arbitrary finger on the scale towards exclusion, including of long-standing material, and sometimes conflicts with wp:consensus. Which is why I'm totally happy with the technical answer which is that as a part of wp:ver, it applies only to mainspace. Which leaves wp:Consensus as the main guidance for the OP case, which is good guidance and a good thing. WP:BRD is about a particular scenario which can occur within the guidance of wp:consensus, combined with a blessing/encouragement for being bold once in that scenerio/sequence. North8000 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:(Not just once: See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Bold (again).) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::I meant it in a narrow way....the applicability of the "Be bold" blessing/encouragement for that particular bold edit. I.E. it blesses "B" for that edit but not BRB. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems obvious to me but other opinions would be welcomed. See WP:RSN#Is German Legal commentary a secondary source?. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)