Talk:Institute Catholique

needs re-write
The content in most of the article was copied and pasted from an article online. (https://aaregistry.org/story/institute-catholique-formed) natemup (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It is perhaps the other way around—that website's information was copied and pasted from this Wikipedia article. In any case, I agree that this article needs to be rewritten. Anwegmann (talk) 16:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I also propose that the unsourced information in this article be hidden until it is either rewritten or properly sourced. It is not appropriate to have an article containing information that is almost universally unsourced, especially given the amount of unsourced information included herein. That goes against nearly all of Wikipedia's standards concerning verifiability and content. Anwegmann (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * This seems to assume that no source exists. You've deleted a source without confirming whether it is independent or not, which is problematic. If the source is reliable, then the article needs to be re-written. If the source is not reliable, then the article's text is likely fine and just needs sources. (And finding sources is not the same thing as deleting/hiding unsourced paragraphs—which does not seem to be a common thing to do on Wikipedia.) natemup (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Per the AAR article's page source, it was published on December 1, 2020. This Wikipedia article has contained nearly all of the information currently present (and, for that matter, plagiarized in the AAR article) since October 2006. The AAR article is clearly unreliable. And I am by no means saying that sources don't exist. They do. But they are not included in this article, and as a result, the information is almost entirely unverified. I understand that verification is a long process, but unverified information should not be included at this volume in a Wikipedia article. If we hide the unsourced material, we can work on it by adding sources over an extended period of time without having unverified information confusing interested readers, gradually making visible only those sections that have proper sourcing. That, at least to me, is a reasonable approach to the fixes this articles desperately needs.


 * Likewise, I am proposing this action, not claiming that it is standard. Standard practice, as it concerns this volume of unsourced material, would be to delete everything in the article that is not tied to a reliable source outright. I would prefer not to do that, as the writing is not terrible, and a lot of the information here is certainly verifiable once someone finds the time and effort to seek out that verification. Anwegmann (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)