Talk:International rugby union eligibility rules

Discussion moved from Hippo43/talk
Hi Hippo43. I have noticed that you have removed several paragraphs and sentences from the article International rugby union eligibility rules. The reason given in the edit summary is not always clear because you use abbreviations, but in several instances it is because you say it's unsourced or 'original research'. As you can read in Wikipedia:Editing policy, Wikipedia in general is a work in progress; articles don't have to be perfect from the moment they are created and can be improved over time. Removing text (either one sentence or an entire paragraph) when you consider this text to be insufficiently referenced is not helpful and certainly doesn't improve the article. After all, if there is no (adequate) reference that doesn't mean that the text is untrue or incorrect. The Wikipedia:Editing policy suggests several possible solutions to "fix the problem" (i.e. improving verifiability), including trying to do a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself as well as, for example, requesting a citation by adding the tag at the end of the particular sentence/paragraph. It's also way more helpful to leave a message on article's talk page or the talk page of the editor who created the article (in this case that's me) or added the sentence/paragraph, and explain what you think the problem is with that particular sentence or paragraph and suggest what you think would be a way to improve that text, rather than bluntly deleting it. In the next few weeks/months, I will make an effort to find additional sources for the text that you deleted. In the mean time, I would be grateful if you refrain from removing text for the sole reason that you think it's not adequately referenced. That simply isn't the way to go about it. Obviously, that applies to all Wikipedia articles.

Another paragraph that you removed is the one that contained information about the eligibility rules in the Olympic Charter. The reason for inclusion of this paragraph was to show why the eligibilty rules in World Rugby Regulation 8 had to be changed after rugby sevens was included in the Olympic programme. This has to be shown because the rule change was (and still is) a deviation from the other, existing eligibility rules in Regulation 8 and it needs to be clear for the reader where this deviation comes from. Possibly, there are better ways to do this than that paragraph did, but – again – entirely removing the paragraph is not helpful at all (it's like throwing the baby out with the bath water). Ruggalicious (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Ruggalicious. Apologies if you haven't understood abbreviations in my edit summaries. Rm means removed, cl means cleanup, OR means original research. You have obviously put a lot of work into this article, but I think there are some clear issues with it.
 * One is notability. The topic does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources. It has been mentioned in lots of news sources, but no one seems to have written anything of substance about the history of the eligibility rules themselves. What you have done is pieced together small bits of information from a number of sources, added some commentary and created a narrative of the history that no reliable source has produced. It's a form of synthesis.
 * Second, you have relied on World Rugby regulations, a primary source, in ways that reliable secondary sources have not. It's original research.
 * We disagree on what is the best thing to do about unsourced content. You are correct that articles do not have to be perfect, and my preference is to remove unsourced, inaccurate content. If it can be sourced, and it is appropriate, then it can go back in. The onus is on you to find sources for your material. This is especially important in cases where the article has been written almost all by one editor, and hasn't had much scrutiny.
 * Removing poor scholarship from articles is improving them. I would be grateful if you would refrain from adding unsourced content. Obviously, that applies to all Wikipedia articles.
 * Regarding the paragraph on the Olympic charter etc, it is obvious original research, and must be removed. There is no independent source referenced that makes the points you inferred, so it has no place in Wikipedia. // Hippo43 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)