![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The statement about the U.S. deliberately infecting Guatemalans with various STDs — while it may be true — is a statement that is so extraordinary that a mere {{
Citation needed}}
tag is insufficient. It is too violative of Wikipedia’s prime directive:
verifiablity. Also, it is up to you, the editor adding the statement, to come up with the
verifiable
reference/
citation. It is not for others to do, not in such an extraordinary circumstance. The onus is on the editor originating the statement. You cannot place that burden on anyone who correctly points out that it runs afoul of
WP:V.
For the originiating editor to merely place a {{
Citation needed}}
tag in such a circumstance is to circumvent the responsibility of providing
verifiable
references/
citations himself, and to place any other editor into a 3RR situation if they do the right thing and remove the eggregiously unsourced statements. —
Spike
Toronto
16:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
If so, we could reinstate the IP editor’s edit with this citation. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 04:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)“CBC News Now,” CBC News Network. October 2, 2010.
To prevent you being blocked for something like this again, you should read the following: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:REFBEGIN.
As for vandalism, you really do not understand the concept. As I have told you elsewhere, please read WP:VAN to understand why reverting an unsourced possibly controversial statement is not vandalism. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 18:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
The statement about the U.S. deliberately infecting Guatemalans with various STDs — while it may be true — is a statement that is so extraordinary that a mere {{
Citation needed}}
tag is insufficient. It is too violative of Wikipedia’s prime directive:
verifiablity. Also, it is up to you, the editor adding the statement, to come up with the
verifiable
reference/
citation. It is not for others to do, not in such an extraordinary circumstance. The onus is on the editor originating the statement. You cannot place that burden on anyone who correctly points out that it runs afoul of
WP:V.
For the originiating editor to merely place a {{
Citation needed}}
tag in such a circumstance is to circumvent the responsibility of providing
verifiable
references/
citations himself, and to place any other editor into a 3RR situation if they do the right thing and remove the eggregiously unsourced statements. —
Spike
Toronto
16:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
If so, we could reinstate the IP editor’s edit with this citation. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 04:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)“CBC News Now,” CBC News Network. October 2, 2010.
To prevent you being blocked for something like this again, you should read the following: WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CITE, and WP:REFBEGIN.
As for vandalism, you really do not understand the concept. As I have told you elsewhere, please read WP:VAN to understand why reverting an unsourced possibly controversial statement is not vandalism. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 18:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)