Wikipedia talk:Verifiability

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Policy and Guidelines WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Burden of Evidence — keeping the reader in suspense isn't very good[edit]

There is no mention of what the title of the section Burden of evidence is referring to until the last paragraph of the section. Seems like the info in the last paragraph of the section, with slight rewording, should be moved to the beginning of the section. I just made the change.[1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That first sentence seems less than encyclopedic and seems awkwardly placed or somewhat random. "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable.". Can we lose that or edit it for better clarity?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I reverted your bold re-wording of the phrase "burden of identifying a reliable source". The way you changed it made it less specific. The kind of "evidence" we require is found in providing verifiable and reliable sourcing. We probably don't want people gathering their own research as "evidence", WP:OR-style.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I reverted that back again. What we do know is the section is titled "Burden of evidence". That was the text I remember being there. I don't know how that got changed but don't recall the discussion so I very much support Bob's re-write.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Mark, maybe you didn't see where BobK has changed the text. The original was The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with, and BobK rewrote that part as The burden of evidence lies with. This is introduced text, I reverted its bold addition. I'd rather talk about the change of phrasing here before adding it to the page. Please put it back the way it was earlier today.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks like it was introduced here so you can probably involve User:WhatamIdoing. I don't think it's a great idea to start wholesale moving this section around before/during discussion in any case.__ E L A Q U E A T E 05:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
A silent consensus is the weakest consensus. Please do not attempt to pit editors against each other in that manner. It isn't a matter of one against another. I do not believe there was a discussion to change the wording so it should probably remain as Bob reverted back to for now.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Well I don't see that a discussion took place before changing the order of the paragraphs. The reason the now-first sentence doesn't make as much sense is because we've scrambled the order. I don't yet see that this is an improvement.__ E L A Q U E A T E 05:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
You're in the discussion. Bob did this correctly. One does not need to ask before making a bold edit. It wouldn't be bold if they did that, however he did begin a discussion. You disagreed and immediately reverted WHEN A DISCUSSION WAS CREATED and didn't wait at all. That was not appropriate. WhatamIdoing did a bold edit and it has now been challenged as not having a consensus for the change. Just because it is there now, does not mean it cannot be changed back when there was no discussion made. Eventually others will weigh in and the consensus could well be for the wording WhatamIdoing made or it could be for something different altogether.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Not appropriate? I reverted a single bold edit to exactly how it was earlier today, and participated in the discussion. It's BRD, not BD. The Verifiability page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.. The paragraphs should be restored to the order they were earlier today. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Part of BRD is that your revert has to be based on policy or guidelines and not just what you like. It was not appropriate for you to revert JUST because you felt a discussion should have taken place first. It isn't DBR either. Your persistence in stating that: "The paragraphs should be restored to the order they were earlier today", seems to indicate that you feel there is a correct version. While two against one is NOT consensus, you have to admit...three editors and you are the only one who wants the other version and has not demonstrated your "burden" to add content back. Where at least I have attempted to understand how the phasing was changed to begin with. may eventually have consensus, but right now the earlier "version" actually does not have a consensus of editors. Now, WhatamIdoing did not need a consensus to make the bold change, but in order for that change to stick does means that it cannot be challenged. Since it has been challenged, the best thing to do at the moment is to leave it as Bob re-wrote it until a consensus is achieved that the other text is preferred. Right now I reverted because your explanation made no sense and was based on your own opinion not on any particular violation of any editing standard, police or guideline, and does not appear to have a discussion to change that text from February. Give it a chance...consensus can change and I always support the consensus...whatever it is. Sometimes I may not be happy about it...but I get over it quickly.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Right now the paragraphs have been scrambled. I don't think there is a "correct version", I'm not tied to a particular phrasing or paragraph order, but I would prefer the discussion to happen before we start moving things around, as I don't think starting the section with the "Sometimes" paragraph makes sense and it reads badly. You're making the case that Whatamidoing's phrasing can be reverted a month later (which is fine) but BobK's switching a paragraph order that's been around for over a year shouldn't be reverted, even when there's no current (silent or otherwise) consensus for the change. I think we should, for the purposes of compromise, keep BobK's rewording of the phrase but switch the paragraphs back to the order they were in before the suggestion. It's clear from looking at a much-earlier iteration here that this section was mixed from earlier subsections, and I'd rather work on making it better than mash the paragraphs further before discussion. __ E L A Q U E A T E 06:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
We need more eyes on this. The community has had very long and detailed discussions on the wording of this section and I think Bob understands that, but you may not. I reverted your revert because it added a change back that had no consensus. It had only been there since February. That isn't what I call long term.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Let's clear up a few things. 1. I'm not asking for any "addition" of anything. I'm only, at this point requesting we restore the paragraph order we had earlier in the day, which has been around for years, with the consensus from those "very long and detailed discussions". 2. If you want the pre-February phrasing for the one part of that sentence that's fine. I'm the one who spent the time determining where it came from and when. If I'd known earlier it was a more recent change, my earlier comments would have been different. 3. I don't think the bold change of paragraph order improves the text. If it was a bold change that improved the text I wouldn't stand on procedure, but this text makes the section start awkwardly. The consensus order for the paragraphs was clearer, giving the introductory guidance on citations first, and giving the guidance on resolving disputes second. Please revert the part of the bold edit that was added today (the paragraph order), and we can discuss any proposed changes here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 08:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That didn't clear anything up. You just clouded the discussion with falsehoods. That section has NOT been in that condition for years. We just changed major portions of it last summer, and as, even you point out, WhatamIdoing changed the text in February.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? That falsehoods crack is completely out of line. I was only talking about the order of the paragraphs in that last comment. The last two replies I've said I don't care about the February addition. Paragraph order. Paragraph order. Paragraph order. That was changed in BobK's addition here. The section discussed had begun with a paragraph addressing challenged or likely to be challenged before it had the paragraph it begins with now. Since 2012 it has started with the "challenged subsection", even having it's own subheading and shortcut, WP:CHALLENGE. I don't mind things changing by consensus, but changing the paragraph order was a new change, not reverting to an older version. Besides all that, I think the last day of editing hasn't significantly improved on the text as it was on April 2.

The section should begin with the sentence "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material.". This describes most clearly what the burden of evidence is, and everything else is just commentary on that. Reyk YO! 09:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the original phrase is clear at all, and it seems to result in occasional confusion. So "the burden of evidence lies with the editor": Great. Now what's the evidence supposed to prove?
We don't actually want editors to provide "evidence". We don't want them to "prove" anything. We don't want "Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion." In fact, we outright ban editors from presenting their own facts or observations in support of assertions in articles. We do not want editors to provide "evidence". We want editors to provide WP:Reliable sources.
I understand the confusion with the section heading. One option is to fix the heading: Burden of evidence becomes Burden for identifying reliable sources or even the plain English Who must find the reliable sources. (We'd want to keep the old name as an anchor so that old links won't break.) Another option is to use both phrases in the sentence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" becomes "The burden of evidence that this material can be supported by a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material". That's a little clunky, but it is a little clearer. But I don't think that we want to tell people that they are required to provide "evidence", when what evidence means in every English dictionary is exactly what we never accept from editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I get what your are trying to say and I agree somewhat, however...I don't think adding a lot more text is the answer. Perhaps brevity is a route here with a slight edit. here is my proposal:


All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[1]

--Mark Miller (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That, or something like that, would work for me. (You might check the bolding.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I see what you mean there. I didn't bold all that was bolded before. I will correct that.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I like this new version. Reyk YO! 23:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
User Alanscottwalker added "..a citation to.."[2], which I clarified further to read ".. an inline citation to.."--Mark Miller (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and self reverted that last contribution I made as it seemd redundant to mention the inline citation when it is actually clarified in the following text. It simply wasn't needed but Alan's change seems to be an improvement at least.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That looks good to me. (Does anyone know whether the typical phrasing would be slightly different, like "the burden of demonstrating verifiability"?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: A little after the heading was changed from "Burden of evidence" to "Burden," I fixed the redirect in that regard. Remember to fix the redirects when changing the section headings of guidelines or policies. I still prefer "burden of evidence" (as the heading and in the text), but that's because it sounds cooler (like we're in a court of law), is shorter than "burden to demonstrate verifiability" and I'm used to it (also note that this is not a serious argument on my part to change the heading/text back). Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Flyer22.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Organization of Burden section[edit]

I looked at the organization of the present Burden section.[3] To clarify the section's organization for myself, I added a bulleted subtitle in bold font to the beginning of each paragraph. Here's the result.

  • BurdenAll content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.[2]
  • Inline citationsAttribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. See Citing sources for details of how to do this.
  • Material without citationsAny material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
  • BLP material without citations — Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.[5]

Comments? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering the above, it looks like the topic of the section is Citations rather than Burden. Burden is a subtopic. Should we change the section title to Citations? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps off-topic, but I believe in the first paragraph, "burden of demonstrating..." would read better than "burden to demonstrate..." I kind of agree with your thoughts on changing the section title but would like to hear what others think. DonIago (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I can agree with that.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose changing the heading to Citations. That section is not simply about citations; it's about the burden of the text and burden of the citations being on the people in question (the ones it mentions). It's about sourcing text, challenging text and what to do in the interim. The Reliable sources section and other sections on the page are more about the citations themselves. Flyer22 (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
For the purposes of this policy, a citation is a reference to a published reliable source. Citations are the backbone of Wikipedia. Perhaps by your phrase "not simply about citations" you meant that the section is about citations and their use. I think the section title "Citations" would cover that. The first paragraph is about using citations for demonstrating verifiability. The second paragraph is about what material requires citations and in broad terms what is needed in a citation. The third and fourth paragraphs advise what to do if material doesn't have a citation.
The section is about citations and their use, which I think is covered by the title "Citations" better than the title "Burden".
However, I can understand how different people will organize things differently in their minds. So if there's no support for what I'm trying to do, I'll just accept that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Nah, I meant what I stated above in this section. We already have sections on the Wikipedia:Verifiability page about citations and their use; the Burden section is about more than that; that is why the shortcuts listed there are WP:UNSOURCED, WP:CHALLENGE, WP:BURDEN, WP:PROVEIT and WP:ONUS. Flyer22 (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I can see I'm not getting anywhere. So in closing I would suggest you check your remarks by going to the project page and doing an edit search for the word "citation" and see what you get. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope, not needed. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

More Burden stuff[edit]

I'm sorry I missed out on the above discussions, but I'm finding that this section is continuing to be used as a way to game things. At ANI there was a quote that I liked:

"...any material challenged or likely to be challenged" is usually taken to mean that the removing editor should have some inkling, at least, it might be incorrect. "The sun is hot" shouldn't be deleted for lack of a citation.

I'd like to get that notion in here. I want folks to at least have to claim they have an inkling the removed material might be incorrect rather than just removing things because its not got an in-line source. Sure, they can lie, but I don't think the intent of this policy is to have people going around removing all unsourced material from every article simply because it is unsourced. Hobit (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Personally I think that while we certainly do have editors who would remove "the sun is hot" for lack of a citation, that's not fundamentally a verifiability issue. It's usually a conduct issue, and occasionally a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Editors who remove material on the basis of good editorial judgment, as an honest challenge to the veracity of the content, should be able to do so freely. Editors who remove material willy-nilly as part of their griefing campaign or personal crusade need to be blocked without notice because they could potentially do immense amounts of damage. The addition I'd like to see to WP:BUDREN is a line to the effect that WP:BURDEN is a powerful tool not to be used lightly, and misusing it can lead to blocks.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree, and agree that it is an important point. But you left out the most common motivation for doing so which is to POV an article by selectively knocking out material. And "leading to blocks" is probably a "poison pill" for your proposal, possibly it should be removed, possibly substituted by identifying the discouraged behavior. So, shamelessly copying your work, that would be:
Personally I think that while we certainly do have editors who would remove "the sun is hot" for lack of a citation, that's not fundamentally a verifiability issue. It's usually a conduct issue, and occasionally a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Editors who remove material on the basis of good editorial judgment, as an honest challenge to the veracity of the content, should be able to do so freely. Editors should not remove material willy-nilly as part of their griefing campaign, an effort to POV an article by selectively knocking out material, or a personal crusade. The addition I'd like to see to WP:BUDREN is a line to the effect of the above and that WP:BURDEN is a powerful tool not to be used lightly. North8000 (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't think the block thing is controversial at all. Someone who's removing material on the basis of good editorial judgment as an honest challenge to the veracity of the content is using WP:BURDEN. Removing material not on the basis of good editorial judgment is vandalism, and it's well-established that vandalism gets you blocked. Citing WP:BURDEN in your edit summary doesn't mean you're not a vandal; in my experience sysops are good at spotting who's in good faith and who's gaming the rules. The litmus test is that someone who's using BURDEN in good faith will be making some kind of effort to explain their edits.—S Marshall T/C 12:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I hear you, but I still think that it is a poison pill. It can/would be said that it is saying that someone can get blocked for applying wp:ver. North8000 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sure, any edit to WP:V always makes someone get unhappy. Unhappy editors do tend to overdramatise things so I can well imagine that would be said. It would be a lie. The threat is that someone can get blocked for vandalism.—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sigh... to quote Star Wars... sometimes it is better to "Let The Wookie Win"... if some idiot challenges the statement "the sun is hot", you can either spend hours arguing that the statement does not need a source... or... you can do a quick search, find a source to support it, and slap it into the article. It took me all of 30 seconds to find this one. And if you really really hate having something like that cited... wait a day or two (until the Wookie goes off to battle on some other page) and quietly remove it again. Problem solved. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of the abuses are not simple invoking of wp:ver for unsourced material. Most of the abuses are on sourced material through a wikilawyering-synergy between this and RS requirements. So it is not a matter of just finding a source. It is a matter of finding a source that is so bulletproof-perfect so that the wikilawyer POV warrior can not use hairsplitting of the source to domino through the burden clause to knock out the otherwise unchallenged material. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation, BURDEN isn't relevant to those cases. DonIago (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hobit, above you stated, "I want folks to at least have to claim they have an inkling the removed material might be incorrect rather than just removing things because its not got an in-line source." But WP:BURDEN already states, "When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." Flyer22 (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Also see the reference supporting the "may not be verifiable" part. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, but we've got editors who feel that doing so is optional. I guess we could remove the "please". Hobit (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
You could, and it will stay if WP:Consensus supports it, but, as shown at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 61#The "provide an inline citation yourself" wording should be changed back to the original wording, I'm definitely one of those editors who feels that it should not be the challenger's job to source the material, especially in the case of experienced Wikipedia editors who know how to source their own material. For such an editor to expect others to source their material for them is one thing that irks me to no end, especially if that editor cites WP:Preserve. Is it best not to remove material that you think or know is verifiable? Yes, if the article clearly benefits from the material. But telling me that I have to leave it in because it's verifiable does not work for me. If I see a bunch of unsourced, badly formatted material added to a WP:Good article or WP:Featured article, for example, I am likely to remove it, whether I know it's verifiable or not; if it has value to the article, I have no problem posting it to the talk page or saving it on my computer (though it's already saved in the edit history) so that it can be WP:Preserved. And I may later add it back, in part or in whole, but better formatted and with WP:Reliable sources to support it. I usually don't challenge unsourced material that is already in an article, unless I challenge it by adding a WP:Reliable source to it. It's usually the freshly added stuff that I challenge. It also irks me when people tag things as needing a citation when those things are common sense, and when, simply because it's unsourced, people remove unsourced material that is quite clearly verifiable, with no indication that they will consider adding the material back at a later date with a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
No, the sentence containing "please" was a compromise between the forces who believe, on the one hand (I'm of this faction), the sentence should not be there at all, who believe that unsourced material should be removable simply because it is unsourced and, on the other hand, those who believe the opposite or, at least, believe that there should be an enforceable burden to source material rather than remove it if sourcing is possible. I don't think that the "please" makes it optional, per se, but I do think that it transforms it into a best-practices burden rather than a strictly-mandatory one. What's the difference, you ask? You can get blocked or banned for habitually or intentionally-disruptively failing to engage in best practices — just like the best practice is to add sources rather than delete material and you can be, as has been demonstrated in the past, blocked or banned for habitually and systematically failing to engage in that practice — whereas you cannot or should not be blocked or banned for failing to do something which is truly optional. We're here to build an encyclopedia and people who habitually fail to follow best practices demonstrate that they aren't here for that purpose (and that's actually what they get blocked or banned for, not the removal of the unsourced material, per se). On the other hand, the busy editor who deletes some unsourced nonsense and forgets to recite the catechism that "I am removing this because I have a good-faith concern a reliable source may not be available for it and it may not, therefore, be reliable" should be given an medal (or at least a stroopwaffel), not a clout. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. And my worry is that we get material deleted for no reason at all other than being unsourced. Things are are trivially sourceable. I don't need them to source them, I just want to be able to yell at them for removing material that is correct and they could verify with a 10 second search. If people go around deleting every paragraph on Wikipedia that doesn't have a source in it, we'd lose, what >50% of our articles and 90% of our content? Heck, I just want them to say "I've doubts about this material being correct" rather than "unsourced" being code for "I don't like this article, so I'm going to cut it down to nothing". Hobit (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
You could just assume that's their reasoning. Or you could ask them politely why material was removed. Why proceed on the assumption that material was removed "for no reason at all"? It would be silly to think that the lack of an edit summary suggests that there's no reason for the edit. DonIago (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN comes down to this... if you want an article to contain some bit of information, you must be prepared to provide a reliable source for it. It is not up to anyone else to find the reliable source... it is up to you... It's your responsibility because you are the person who wants it in the article.
That's it in a nutshell. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Removing material without attempting to communicate your reasons is hard to distinguish from random vandalism, and we don't hand out medals or stroopwafels for vandalism. If you use WP:BURDEN, you'd be well advised to give your reasons.—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Not hard to distinguish if, for example, as TransporterMan stated, it's "some unsourced nonsense." And if we want to state that one person's nonsense is another person's gold... I state, "Nah, Wikipedia has guidelines and policies that assist in removing what it considers nonsense." Flyer22 (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Arg. By that logic we should all have our own Wikipedias--after all if you aren't willing to put it in, it must not be worth having. Just dumb. There is no good reason to delete material that you have no doubt is correct just because there isn't a source. That's my worry and that's what I'm seeing from a group of editors. They spend 2 minutes reverting and then someone has to spend hours cleaning up the mess they left. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
And yet plenty of editors add material with proper sourcing all the time... And can you cite any examples in which an editor removed unsourced material and others had to spend "hours cleaning up the mess"? It seems easy enough to undo a deletion and add sources at the same time. DonIago (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Can't say for certain how long it took (I'd guess 30 minutes?), but [4] looks like a good example where someone was sourcing an article over a number of edits and saw an admin repeatedly delete parts--all because someone else had once cut out material (sourced and unsourced by the way) at one point and thus, per WP:BURDEN it couldn't be added back in without sources. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I wish you'd provided an example with which you were not personally involved, as now it's hard for me to dispell the impression that you're biased in this matter. In any case, when I look at that and the related ANI filing I see a situation where none of the involved editors handled the matter as well as they could have, but the removing editor seems to have been operating in good faith and the material that was removed should have been properly sourced at the time it was added. The removing editor did leave a reasonable edit summary at the time. If an editor wanted to incrementally source the material instead of properly satisfying BURDEN they could have discussed it at the Talk page (which notably has no discussion at all). This never should have become an edit-warring situation. In any case, if it only took 30 minutes to fix? I've spent over 30 minutes mulling over all this. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Strangely the ones I'm aware of are the ones I'm involved in. And I only got involved because of the ANI complaint (I was uninvolved before that...) In any case, the removing editor did not leave a reasonable edit summary--his edit summary in fact A) didn't note he removed sourced material and B) implied he'd not read the article. And at issue isn't 1 case, but the large number of cases where this happens. Just look at the removing editors edit history. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that is was a clear-cut, bright-line, unequivocal policy violation, Hobit. I wish you would see that. I didn't remove the material from the history. I didn't chastise Torchiest. I didn't do any of those bad things. What I did do was remove material from an article that had been added back without a citation after it had been challenged. The editor promptly restored it with a source. That's pretty close to how it is supposed to work. If Torchiest had simply used citations when he restored the material in the first place, it would have been great. Of course, if you hadn't insisted on reinserting the material while ignoring your obligations under WP:BURDEN earlier, it would have been even better.
WP:BURDEN is the only policy that provides an absolute defense against unsuitable material. Anybody can create articles. Nobody can delete them without undergoing a trial-by-unreasonable-scrutiny and then generally only after an article-by-article vote. This creates an enormous imbalance in favour of having unsourced and unsourceable material. WP:BURDEN is a necessary counterbalance by providing a case where the presumption is reversed, and material must stay out until demonstrated to be verifiable. For an editor to restore challenged material without providing a source because he thinks it is good material is just as wrong as if I began deleting articles because I thought the encyclopedia would be better off without them.—Kww(talk) 15:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2014[edit]

The analogy used to describe false premise is inappropriate content. Wikipedia is used by school age children. Using a reference to alcohol and lesbianism is outrageous! I am appalled that that type of content is an acceptable form for demonstrating a middle school Reading standard. (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done — See Wikipedia is not censored, but even if it was there would be nothing objectionable about that since there are no explicit sexual references. Also, though somewhat besides the point at this remove, this is not the place to request such changes, nor is this request needed since that article is not protected. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutral notification of ongoing discussion at Talk:Bradbury Building[edit]

In lieu of starting a full-blown RfC I would like to invite interested editors to comment on an ongoing discussion between myself and Beyond My Ken at Talk:Bradbury_Building#Popcult_removals_by_alf_laylah_wa_laylah. It's been open for a while and no one else has weighed in. It involves issues related to this policy, so I am dropping this note here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a Mistake in the name Parichhatgarh District Meerut, U.P. INDIA[edit]

Hi, This is Atul Bhardwaj, a born and brought up of Parikshit Garh town of western Uttar Pradesh India. I have joined the Wikipedia by today because of my interest to know and read about everything, I could manage to get updated myself with every rare or unique knowledge about everything.

In records of Wikipedia, I found that spelling of Parikshit Garh is showing "Parichhatgarh. Which is not write. So, I believe that it must be change. Kindly do the needful.

Regards Atul Bhardwaj 9810508009 APRATIHAT BHARDWAJ (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe you'll want to bring this up at Talk:Parikshitgarh. This page is for discussing changes to Wikipedia's Verifiability policy. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014[edit]

Mustkin Ahmad 06:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, to this page about Verifiability, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". - Arjayay (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
[[I believe I can clarify some ownership, lets just say I have a long term medical condition and after 7 years of self management and motivation. I lost my job so I studied hoping to gain the skills to help me back on the ladder. It became clear I could not hold down a 9 to 5 job, due to medical implications so next thing was to start my own company with in utilizing my skill sets and experience, so after much research it cam down to MBA or Masters in planning and sustainability. Unfortunately I ended up taking two years to complete as things were no right, and after rejection, waiting times and not been heard, I was forced to my knees needing help.

==It is from the pain I suffered and I don't want anyone to experience that situation, and for me been young career on the right track, I felt I had lost everything but I refused to lie down with out a fight. Yes I struggled but I had to feel there was a place for me to hold my head up high. So I wrote several email to a health board what I would bring with me, education for patient where negligence is a factor, if there condition is life changing it gives them a new purpose and keeps the mentally active and motivated, the area of training I proposed was in the area of medical/ desktop surveillance. This is a very grey area but there is a need of a understanding from a patients side. I would be proud to see this adopted but consent is needed, this accounts for all my sourced material taken, used, in use, published and all other forms and its should not be used in any way until consent is given by myself and consent has been granted. ==I ((Dean Skivington)) have given a true statement and I look forward to hearing from you, if there are helpers who can guide project assistance I would Like to share my forward thinking and very much so my songs, lyrics as these were my one thing I had left. Please dont delete my comment, I can't express myself with out getting a speedy deletion, so please so your support.]]

mistake in name[edit]

Hi, I had visited the history page to know about my nearby place's execution. I found that the current spelling of this place is showing as Parichhatgarh. Which is wrong. It should be written "Parikshit Garh" only . because this place was built by King Parikshit, the Grand Son of Arjun(all belongs to MahaBharat). I think,Parichhatgarh should be removed, and replaced by Parikshit Garh.

Regards Atul Bhardwaj — Preceding unsigned comment added by APRATIHAT BHARDWAJ (talkcontribs) 13:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).