This page documents an English Wikipedia [[:Category:Wikipedia WP:ONUSs|WP:ONUS]]. Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

[[Category:Wikipedia wp:onuss|Burden of evidence]]

This page in a nutshell: The onus is on those seeking to include content, to justify and achieve consensus for its inclusion

With inclusion of articles, the presumption is in favour of keeping a disputed article unless there is a consensus for its removal. The opposite applies to disputed content within articles. A long-standing principle of Wikipedia is the bold, revert, discuss model, and this implies that content, once added, may be removed and should then be discussed. The onus is on the editor(s) seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter. If you want text included, it is up to you to source it, and up to you to persuade others of its significance and relevance in context.

Common errors include:

• Objection to the removal of "cited content".
• Assertions that consensus is needed before contentious content may be removed.
• Assertions that contentious material may not be removed without prior discussion.

These are common misconceptions, but misconceptions nonetheless. Being cited does not render content immune from restrictions such as undue weight, especially in controversial areas. Wikipedia's policy is that all content should be written form the neutral point of view, and be verifiable from reliable sources. If the neutrality, accuracy, reliability or verifiability of content is challenged, then it would be wrong to simply assume that it meets these fundamental policies just by virtue of being in the article or having some kind of source.

As a corollary, the editor who wishes to remove content from an article should first check to ensure that its inclusion has not already been discussed. While consensus can change, repeatedly going round the same loop of argument is considered disruptive and is not conducive to harmonious editing. Where disputed content is removed, it is reasonable to expect that a justification be given for its removal, and the editor seeking to remove the content engages with those who seek to include it. The aim is always to work with others to build an encyclopaedia, not to draw battle lines.