This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This subject is featured in the Outline of Ecuador, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
I came across the short article Regions of Ecuador, which expands (only slightly) on the four regions described in the Geography section. Can that information be merged into this article? Or are there plans to expands the Regions article? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Uncited material that has been challenged, via deletion, can be restored -- but only in accord w/wp:burden. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Since the editor does not seem to like the application of WP:BURDEN, I will quote the relevant part here ... noting that I did consider tagging the language in question, but chose under the circumstances to delete it. The editor is free to restore any such deleted information with the appropriate citation, per wp:burden:
"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 citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
Attribute all quotations and any material 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....
Any 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.
^.... and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.
It does not say that "there are better ways to engage with your fellow editors and get citations added where missing."
Just because an editor does not like wp:v, and wishes to enter and retain uncited material in articles, does not mean that the editor's view is an improvement of the Project.
Any editor is free to challenge/delete further material from this article that is not supported by wp:v. There is no deadline. Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
What nonsense! Lets see the bits you left out ....
Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.
Any 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.
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.
Your edit summary does not state whether you believe this deleted material is factually incorrect, or misleading, or what? Which is it? The burden to explain that lies with you, not me. It's not good enough to say there is no citation. If you have a challenge, you need to state what that is. Not every piece of of information needs a reference.
So whats your challenge?
BTW, you don't need white space between indented lines. Atlas-maker (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
The ancillary parts you reflect above don't change the point at all. Wholly uncited material was added. It was challenged and deleted. You restored it, without any citation let alone the requisite inline RS ref. That was a clear violation of wp:v.
My edit summary stated: "d uncited per wp:v". I thus stated a concern that it violated wp:v, and by turning to wp:v we understand that to be a concern that "there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable." (it is fine to link to the language; we don't have to repeat it in the edit summary if there is an appropriate link to it). The material was wholly uncited.
As to whom the "burden" is on vis-a-vis such material, wp:v states, inter alia, "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 citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Since you restored the wholly uncited material, that burden was on you, and you failed to comply with your burden. Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
You can isolate individual phrases and sentences all you like, but the total meaning of the whole section is not as you pretend. It very pointedly highlights the distress you are causing by not tagging unedited sections and allowing reasonable time for references to be added. Doing so is the mark of someone who is willing to engage with the broader community rather than plough their self-obsessed lonely furrow. This is supposed to be a community project. Editor behaviour is a big issue on WP, and this sort of action is a prime example of the reasons that editors don't stay. You give no rational reason why these paragraphs in particular must go. Go back and look at the article again. After the lede, the next 15 paragraphs are entirely unreferenced. So why did they stay, when you removed the 2 from sport? What was the reason the sport paras were decimated ahead of all the other incited sections? Do you have a reason? Or was it because you happened to be a particularly bad mood that day when you Random Articled into Ecuador? WP:Burden is very clear that when you challenge and delete material you must explan you rationale. And saying that it lacks citations is not a rational explanation. I am challenging you to explain yourself. The community deserves that explanation. Or are you just a law unto yourself? Atlas-maker (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
First of all, the central issue is that you violated the clear strictures of wp:burden. Please don't do it again. As much as you may like to insert unverified material into the Project, please respect wp:v. Second, there is not of course -- as you know -- any per se requirement that material be tagged before deletion. I often tag material. But I exercise editor discretion as to whether or when I do so, per wp:v. Third, please don't make ad hominem accusations. They are personal attacks. Perhaps personal attacks, and the re-addition of challenged wholly unreferenced material, are the reasons editors don't stay. Fourth, there is not need to review or challenge or delete all material that could be handled in that way all at one time. And editor is doing a perfectly fine job by focusing on the text that he focuses on, and (for the moment, at least) not doing so with other text within the article. There is no urgency for any editor doing so. As was already mentioned to you. Nobody has to explain to Atlas either, btw, why they were focused on one wholly uncited section of the article rather than another. Editors are free to focus one section of an article, and not another, at a point in time. As discussed above, the material was deleted per wp:v; if you can't take the time to click through and see the wp:v criteria, I repeated them to you above. Anyway, I appreciate that while you may be a fan of including in the Project wholly uncited material, you are now presumably on notice that to do so without inline RS refs -- as you did here -- is a direct violation of wp:burden. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
See related discussion at another article here, and related discussion referencing this issue at this article here, and resultant block from edit-warring over this issue at the other article here (followed by a further block of Atlas-maker for block evasion). Epeefleche (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Too tired to do the research to correct this, but in the 3rd paragraph there is this obviously wrong sentence:
In reflection of the country's rich cultural heritage, the historical centers of Quito and Cuenca, the third-largest city, were each declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site was also declared a World Heritage Site in 1999 as an outstanding example of a planned, inland Spanish-style colonial city in the Americas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)