Talk:Jack Donner

Margaret Markov unsourced as spouse
After I removed "Margaret Markov (m. 1970–1973" from the infobox, that line was restored with the comment "rv unthorough undo...it's referenced on her page,...you do the math. plus it is in marriage records found on ancestry.com...p.s. you need a membership to find it,."

Citing sources says, "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space." I don't find any citation for Markov's marriage to Donner on her page either.

Are editors supposed to ignore the citation policy? Perhaps will comment on this page to explain why a citation is not needed in this situation. Eddie Blick (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Sure, being a condescending jerk always provides fruitful gains, so I'll play along, as I, too, can rhetorically ask questions, and myself ponder why it is that users can no longer assume good faith among one another anymore?
 * Clearly wikilawyer-happy users need only bother address half of another's point to validate their argument, and not actually make a good faith effort of their own, to validate incomplete edits. And why should they when it is far easier to blindly go about being click-happy "undoer" and willy-nilly undoing others valid, if not, difficult to verify, contributions in the first place?
 * Far be it for me to think that it would be much easier to slap an "incite" tag on the name, followed by the initiation of a more civil version of this discussion, citing Wikipedia links on hiw to cite ancestry-type citations, seeing as you knew this involved ancestry.com records when you started this stage of the game.
 * That is, of course, keeping in mind knowing that this involves delving into the realm of less-than-obvious, not always freely accessible sources, pertaining to personal information about two private individuals, where typically no practical means to verify such things with a link or tangible page citation exist, and if there were, I should have at least hoped that I could count on your own self-righteous need and attitude towards dedicating yourself to Wikipedia's stringent validation process to help me get it right. I see no such offer on the table...all I saw was a challenge, and a complete lack of effort to do much else beyond that to make this any sort of productive community effort.
 * So because my time is clearly worth nothing to this matter, as I see I now have to share my personal research time in this matter with you for free; let's say, hypothetically, to prove this, one may wish to check the California Marriage Index, 1960-1985, and, hypothetically, they may find the two individuals in question were listed there, married on X Xxx 1970; likewise, if one might hypothetically look into the California Marriage Index, 1966-1984, they too may hypothetically find that the same couple divorced in Xxx 1973, both in LA, of course. (Bonus points for figuring out which project(s) they may or may not have hypothetically worked on together in and around that same timeframe...! Extra bonus points if someone can do the same to validate the other wife named too, who is also not cited, but can be found much the same way, and was.)
 * You're welcome. --Gvsualan (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, . Sharing your personal research time should result in citations. The point is not to share the results of that research with only me (or any other individual editor). Citations show anyone who reads the article where relevant information can be found. If the California Marriage Index gives the appropriate information about a fact, then it should be cited in the article, rather than mentioned in an edit summary. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)