S
S Marshall
Guest
A very rough draft
[td][/td] [td]:I wonder if some of this (e.g., [[WP
irectly supports]]) could be addressed with a ==Terms and definitions== section. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:I wonder if some of this (e.g., [[WPirectly supports]]) could be addressed with a ==Terms and definitions== section. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]:
ossibly? Do any terms other than [[WPirectly supports]] need defining?[/td]
[td]::I'm not settled on any thoughts at the moment but last night I came up with a very rough draft:[/td]
[td]{{collapse top}}[/td]
[td]{| class="wikitable" style=width:50em[/td]
[td]|-[/td]
[td]|+ Unpacked and rewritten[/td]
[td]|-[/td]
[td]! scope=col style="width:30%;" | Responsibility for providing citations[/td]
[td]! scope=col style="width:30%;" | Basics[/td]
[td]|-[/td]
[td]| All content must be verifiable. '''The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material''', and it is satisfied by providing an [[Wikipedia:Inline citation|inline citation]] to a reliable source that directly supports (A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present {{em|explicitly}} in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citationβincluding whether one is present in the article at allβis unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|Citations}}, etc.) the contribution. Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; [[WPUE|undue emphasis]]; [[WP:NOT|unencyclopedic content]]; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] for details of how to do this.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a [[Wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]] tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added. When an article contains a lot of [[Wikipedia:Glossary#uncited|uncited]] information, it may be impractical to add specific {{tl|citation needed}} tags. Consider then [[WP:TAG|tagging]] a section with {{tl|unreferenced section}}, or the article with the applicable of either {{tl|unreferenced}} or {{tl|more citations needed}}. For a disputed category, you may use {{tl|unreferenced category}}. For a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. When tagging or removing such material, please communicate your reasons why. Some editors object to others making frequent and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. Also, check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified. If you think the material is verifiable, [[WPRESERVE|you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself]] before removing or tagging it.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Do {{em|not}} leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|living people]] or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] also [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Legal persons and groups|applies to groups]].[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]||[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]; Policy[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Each fact or claim must be verifiable. {{em|The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.}} It is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. The cited source must clearly support the fact or claim as presented in the article.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]; Practice[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] and {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|Citations}}.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Once an editor has provided a source they believe, in good faith, is sufficient, any editor who later removes the material must explain. State specific problems that would justify its removal. If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus. Problems should be fixed before the material is added back.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]; Considerations[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Always check to see whether the disputed material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Do not use this clause selectively on material of a particular point of view. Always make sure the article is [[WP:NPOV|neutral]].[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Do not overuse this clause.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Although policy allows this, removing facts or claims is a relatively drastic action that's best reserved for material you have good reason to doubt. The right approach to removing unsourced content considers the material in context.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Removing verifiable material just because it doesn't have an inline citation right now is unhelpful. Removing false claims is helpful, but replacing them with verifiable claims is much better.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]When dealing with facts or claims you think are dubious, a good option is to add a tag, which allows other editors time to find references. When an article contains a lot of uncited facts or claims, it may be impractical to add specific {{tl|citation needed}} tags. Consider [[WP:TAG|tagging]] a section with {{tl|unreferenced section}}, or the article with {{tl|unreferenced}} or {{tl|more citations needed}}. For a disputed category, you may use {{tl|unreferenced category}}. For a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Where you feel the need to remove large quantities of material, it's always best to start a discussion first.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]|}[/td]
[td]{{collapse bottom}}[/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 327: | Line 327: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td][/td]Revision as of 08:02, 2 September 2025
[/td][td][/td] [td]:I wonder if some of this (e.g., [[WP
irectly supports]]) could be addressed with a ==Terms and definitions== section. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td][td]:I wonder if some of this (e.g., [[WP
irectly supports]]) could be addressed with a ==Terms and definitions== section. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]:ossibly? Do any terms other than [[WPirectly supports]] need defining?[/td]
[td]::I'm not settled on any thoughts at the moment but last night I came up with a very rough draft:[/td]
[td]{{collapse top}}[/td]
[td]{| class="wikitable" style=width:50em[/td]
[td]|-[/td]
[td]|+ Unpacked and rewritten[/td]
[td]|-[/td]
[td]! scope=col style="width:30%;" | Responsibility for providing citations[/td]
[td]! scope=col style="width:30%;" | Basics[/td]
[td]|-[/td]
[td]| All content must be verifiable. '''The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material''', and it is satisfied by providing an [[Wikipedia:Inline citation|inline citation]] to a reliable source that directly supports (A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present {{em|explicitly}} in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of [[Wikipedia:No original research]]. The location of any citationβincluding whether one is present in the article at allβis unrelated to whether a source directly supports the material. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]], {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|Citations}}, etc.) the contribution. Once an editor has provided any source they believe, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia (e.g., why the source is unreliable; the source does not support the claim; [[WPUE|undue emphasis]]; [[WP:NOT|unencyclopedic content]]; etc.). If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], and any problems with the text or sourcing should be fixed before the material is added back.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s)—though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] for details of how to do this.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Consider adding a [[Wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]] tag as an interim step to removing unsourced material, to allow references to be added. When an article contains a lot of [[Wikipedia:Glossary#uncited|uncited]] information, it may be impractical to add specific {{tl|citation needed}} tags. Consider then [[WP:TAG|tagging]] a section with {{tl|unreferenced section}}, or the article with the applicable of either {{tl|unreferenced}} or {{tl|more citations needed}}. For a disputed category, you may use {{tl|unreferenced category}}. For a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. When tagging or removing such material, please communicate your reasons why. Some editors object to others making frequent and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. Also, check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified. If you think the material is verifiable, [[WPRESERVE|you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself]] before removing or tagging it.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Do {{em|not}} leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|living people]] or existing groups, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] also [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Legal persons and groups|applies to groups]].[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]||[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]; Policy[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Each fact or claim must be verifiable. {{em|The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.}} It is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material. The cited source must clearly support the fact or claim as presented in the article.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Facts or claims without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports them may be removed. They should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people, and do not move it to the talk page. You should also be aware of how Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons also applies to groups.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]; Practice[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if the information is present explicitly in the source. For questions about where and how to place citations, see [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] and {{section link|Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section|Citations}}.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Once an editor has provided a source they believe, in good faith, is sufficient, any editor who later removes the material must explain. State specific problems that would justify its removal. If necessary, all editors are then expected to help achieve consensus. Problems should be fixed before the material is added back.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]; Considerations[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Always check to see whether the disputed material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Do not use this clause selectively on material of a particular point of view. Always make sure the article is [[WP:NPOV|neutral]].[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Do not overuse this clause.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Although policy allows this, removing facts or claims is a relatively drastic action that's best reserved for material you have good reason to doubt. The right approach to removing unsourced content considers the material in context.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Removing verifiable material just because it doesn't have an inline citation right now is unhelpful. Removing false claims is helpful, but replacing them with verifiable claims is much better.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]When dealing with facts or claims you think are dubious, a good option is to add a tag, which allows other editors time to find references. When an article contains a lot of uncited facts or claims, it may be impractical to add specific {{tl|citation needed}} tags. Consider [[WP:TAG|tagging]] a section with {{tl|unreferenced section}}, or the article with {{tl|unreferenced}} or {{tl|more citations needed}}. For a disputed category, you may use {{tl|unreferenced category}}. For a disambiguation page, consider asking for a citation on the talk page.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Where you feel the need to remove large quantities of material, it's always best to start a discussion first.[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]|}[/td]
[td]{{collapse bottom}}[/td]Continue reading...
